LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

GIKT    01T 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.  5*J  $$(<>.      Class  No. 


e).  y/a 


UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE: 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF  MORE  THAN  ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY 

TEXTS    OF    SCRIPTURES,  IN    CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 

EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANS  AND  UNIVERSALISTS, 

COM  PRISING 

A  REFUTATION  OF  UNIVERSALIST  THEOLOGY,  AND  AN  EXPOSURE 

OF  THE  SOPHISTICAL  ARGUMENTS  AND  OTHER  MEANS 

BY  WHICH  IT    IS    PROPAGATED; 

WITH    A 
GENERAL  AND  SCRIPTURE  INDEX. 


BY  REV.   N.   D.   GEORGE. 


"  Not  walking  in  craftiness,  nor  handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully  ;  but,  by  manifesta 
tion  of  the  truth  commending  ourselves  to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God." 

PAUL. 


NEW    YORK: 

FOE  SALE  BY  CARLTON  &  PHILLIPS,  200  MULBERRY  STREET, 
BOSTON:  JAMES  P.  MAGEE,  5  COKNHILL. 

1856. 


-BX 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856, 

BY   N  .D.    GEORGE, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


G«0.  C.  RAKD  &  A  VIST,  PantTsr.s,  3  CousnitL,  BOSTOK. 


CONTENTS. 


PAET  I. 

PAGE 

Examination  of  Scriptures  in  Controversy  between  Universalists  and 

Believers  of  Future  and  Eternal  Punishment, 9 


PART    II. 

Miscellaneous  Arguments, 321 


PREFACE. 


THIS  book  is  designed  to  expose  the  errors  of  Universalism 
and  to  aid  the  inquirer  after  truth.  Does  the  reader  desire 
to  find  a  passage  of  scripture  connected  with  this  subject  ? 
let  him  turn  to  the  "  Scripture  Index,"  and  he  is  pointed  to 
the  page  where  the  passage  is  explained.  Does  he  wish  to  find 
an  argument  or  a  fact  stated  ?  he  has  only  to  turn  to  the 
"  General  Index,"  and  he  is  directed  to  the  place.  It  is  not 
pretended,  however,  that  every  text  or  argument  which  may 
be  used  at  times  to  teach  Universalism,  is  examined  in  this 
work.  But  it  will  be  admitted  by  Universalists  themselves, 
that  if  their  doctrine  is  not  contained  in  these  texts  which  are 
examined,  it  is  not  found  in  the  Bible.  I  have  endeavored 
to  attend  to  all  those  upon  which  they  rely  with  the  greatest 
confidence,  and  conclude  that  but  few,  if  any,  of  this  class 
have  escaped  notice.  Neither  is  it  claimed  that  all  the 
scriptures  which  go  to  establish  future  punishment  are  pre 
sented.  The  prominent  texts  are  given,  and  the  falsity  and 
absurdity  of  Universalist  interpretations  shown. 

A  work  upon  this  plan,  where  so  many  texts  of  like  im 
port  are  examined  separately,  must  of  necessity  involve  some 


VI  PREFACE. 

repetition   of  thought  and   language.      This,  however,  is   ob 
viated  in  part,  by  references  from  one  section  to  another. 

For  twenty  years  past  I  have  been  a  close  observer  of  the 
modifications,  tactics,  and  general  operations  of  the  order  of 
Universalists,  and  having  availed  myself  of  their  periodicals 
and  books,  by  their  principal  men,  am  fully  satisfied  that, 
whatever  a  few  of  its  advocates  may  profess  in  certain  locali 
ties,  no  future  punishment  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist 
body  in  the  United  States,  the  exceptions  being  very  few. 
There  is  but  little  regard  among  them  for  the  future  punish 
ment  views  of  the  Restorationists.  The  force  of  their  teach 
ings  for  years,  has  been  against  them.  See  Sec.  CXXXVI. 
This  fact  furnishes  the  reason  why  particular  reference  has 
been  had  to  the  no-future  punishment  sentiment  and  its  con 
comitants  in  writing  this  book.  Restoration  views,  however, 
are  abundantly  refuted  in  this  examination. 

I  was  a  subscriber  for,  and  constant  reader  of,  the  Univer 
salist  Trumpet  more  than  two  years  before  my  conversion  to 
God,  and,  as  might  be  expected,  imbibed  its  spirit  and  sen 
timents.  Having  known  something  of  its  blighting  influence 
upon  my  own  heart,  and  witnessing  it  extensively  upon  others, 
and  believing  that  Universalism,  as  it  exists  among  us,  while 
it  professes  a  regard  for  the  Bible,  contains  within  it  all 
the  elements  of  theoretical  and  practical  infidelity,  I  have 
endeavored  to  tear  off  the  mask,  and  present  its  true  features  ; 
how  successfully  the  reader  will  judge. 

Acknowledgments  are  due  Messrs.  P.  R.  Russell,  A.  Royce, 
L.  Lee,  and  C.  Kingsley,  for  liberal  extracts  from  their 
valuable  books ;  also,  to  Rev.  C.  Munger,  of  the  Maine  Con- 


PREFACE.  Vll 

ference  for  two  valuable   articles   contained  in  sections  XX. 
and  CX. 

Although  I  have  availed  myself  of  all  the  helps  at  hand,  yet 
it  is  believed  that  this  production,  for  the  most  part,  passes 
over  ground  heretofore  unoccupied  by  any  other  writer.  It 
has  been  prosecuted  under  a  firm  conviction  of  duty,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  advice  of  judicious  brethren  in  the  min 
istry,  whose  opinions  are  worthy  of  respect.  The  book  is 
submitted  to  a  candid  public,  with  the  earnest  prayer  of  the 
author,  that  it  may  be  the  means,  under  God,  of  saving 
some  soul  from  death,  and  thereby  hiding  a  multitude  of  sins. 

N.  D.   GEOKGE. 


MIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE, 


PART    I. 

EXAMINATION  OF  SCRIPTURES  IN  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 
UNIVERSALISTS  AND  BELIEVERS  IN  FUTURE  AND 
ENDLESS  PUNISHMENT. 

I.  "And  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will 
bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shalt  be  a  bless 
ing :  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that 
curseth  thee  ;  and  in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."— Gen.  12  : 2,  3.  Repeated  chapter  18  : 17,  18,  also 
22 :  13,  with  this  variation,  "In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This  is  repeated  to  Isaac,  chap.  26  : 
4,  and  to  Jacob,  chap.  28  : 14.  In  Acts,  3  : 25,  where  Peter 
quotes  it,  the  phrase  "  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth,"  occurs. 

This  promise  is  often  presented  with  great  confidence,  as 
teaching  the  salvation  of  all  men ;  hence,  Universalism  has  by 
its  advocates,  been  denominated  the  "  Abrahamic  Faith." 
Before  proceeding  in  our  examination,  it  is  proper  to  define 
Universalism,  and  show  when,  where,  and  by  what  means,  it  is 
contended  that  it  will  be  accomplished.  According  to  this 
theory,  the  whole  race  of  Adam,  i.e.  all  that  ever  have  lived, 
now  live,  or  may  hereafter  live,  will  be  made  holy  and  happy, 
not  in  this  world,  but  in  the  future  or  resurrection  fitate.  Says 
2 


10  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Mr.  Skinner,  "None,  therefore,  can  be  saved  from  all  moral 
evil  here.     Add  to  this  the  fact,  that  salvation  includes  redemp 
tion  from  death,  and  you  will  see  that  the  work  will  not  be  fully 
accomplished,  till  this  corruptible  puts  on  incorruption.     In  the 
morning  of  the  resurrection  we  shall  be  complete  in  the  Saviour, 
and  join  in  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb." — £7!  III.  and 
Def.,  p.  261.     Says  Mr.  Ballou,  "  the  resurrection  power,  which 
brought  again  from  the  dead  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  will  finally, 
in  him,  make  the  whole  human  family  gloriously  immortal  and 
incorruptible." — Exp.  vol.  1,  p.  78.     Again  says  Mr.  Skinner, 
"The  resurrection  introduces  us  into  the  kingdom  of  endless 
blessedness."     "We  shall  all  be  equal  in  the  resurrection," 
"  all  are  alike,  all  equally  honorable,  glorious  and  happy.     We 
shall  be  equal  to  the  angels."     "  The  resurrection  is  spoken  of 
as  a  victory  over  death,  the  grave,  and  sin."     "  In  the  victory 
of  the  resurrection,  there  is  no  cause  of  regret.     This  is  a  vic 
tory  in  which  a  world  is  redeemed  and  saved.      U.  III.  and 
Def.,  pp.  289,  293.      Mr.  Whittemore,   in  an  effort  to  show 
that  dying  in  sin  determines  nothing  relative  to  the  future,  says  : 
"  The  question  touching  man's  future  condition  is  not,  how  did 
he  die  ?    but  how  will  he  be  raised  ?     What  constitution  will  he 
put  on  in  the  future  existence  ?  —  To  the  process  of  this  change, 
(the  resurrection)  we  are  happy  to  leave  not  only  the  Jews,  but 
all  mankind.  —  The  sting  of  death,  which  is  sin,  will  (then)  be 
destroyed  ;  and  all  will  be  reconciled  to  the  Father." — Trumpet, 
Oct.  6,  1855.     See  also  a  quotation  from   Williamson,  in  Sec. 
XCY.     Quotations  might  be  greatly  multiplied  from  leading 
authors,  but  it  is  not  demanded,  as  all  who  have  any  acquaint 
ance  with  the  system  know  what  it  attributes  to  the  resurrection. 
Observe,  it  is  not  by  faith  in  Christ,  it  is  not  by  the   atonement 
made  by  him,  it  is  not  by  any  conditions  performed,  but  it  is  by 
"  the  victory  of  the  resurrection,  that  a  world  is  redeemed  and 
saved."     With  this  view,  then,  we  are  at  liberty  to  construe  the 
promise  to  Abraham  as  follows,  "  In  thy  seed  shall  the  wlioh 
race  of  man  be  made  holy  and  happy  in  the  future  state  ly  the 


SCO.   1.]  UNIVKSSA.LISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  11 

resurrection.''  We  contend  that  Heaven  never  designed  to 
convey  such  instruction  in  this  promise  and  that  there  is  no  evi 
dence  whatever  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses,  the 
Prophets,  or  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  ever  so  understood  it ; 
but  on  the  other  hand  there  is  an  abundance  in  the  Scriptures 
to  show  that  it  has  direct  reference  to  the  spread  of  Christianity 
in  the  earth,  and  not  to  the  unconditional  holiness  and  happiness 
of  all  men  after  death.  This  evidence  will  now  be  presented. 
Mr.  Whittcmore  in  his  Guide,  p.  30,  in  what  were  once  called 
his  "  One  Hundred  Arguments,"  manufactures  at  least  six  of 
them  out  of  this  promise.  Now  if  we  can  show  that  his  doctrine 
derives  no  support  from  it,  we  shall  overthrow  his  six  arguments 
at  once.  In  one  he  gives  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Clarke  on  Gen. 
12  : 3,  in  which  the  Dr.  states  that  the  Messiah's  "  gospel  shall 
be  preached  throughout  the  world,  and  innumerable  blessings  be 
derived  on  all  mankind,  through  his  death  and  intercessions." 
That  all  mankind  have  been  graciously  affected  by  the  atone 
ment  is  a  truth  to  which  we  heartily  subscribe,  but  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  all  will  be  saved  in  the  future  state  ;  and  Dr. 
Clarke,  as  Mr.  Whittemore  well  knows,  never  intended  to  teach 
such  a  sentiment.  That  all  the  classes  named,  nations,  families, 
and  individuals,  are  said  to  be  blessed,  without  being  uncondi 
tionally  saved  in  the  future  state,  may  be  seen  by  referring  to 
the  following  scriptures:  Ps.  33:12;  Num.  22:  12;  Gen.  9: 
1 ;  2  Sam.  6:11;  Gen.  39  :  5  ;  Judges,  13  :  24  ;  Gen.  17  : 
20. 

In  order  to  bring  out  the  true  import  of  this  promise,  let  us 
inquire : 

1.  What  is  meant  ly  the  seed  of  Abraham  through  whom 
the  nations  are  to  lie  llesssd  ? 

In  Gal.  3  : 10,  we  read  as  follows  :  "  Now  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds, 
as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ." 
Here  it  is  stated  that  Christ  is  the  seed  of  Abraham.  But  it 
will  be  seen  by  examining  the  chaptcr,that  the  apostle  states 


•ITYJ 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

with  equal  clearness  that  believers  are  Abraham's  seed.  This 
matter  is  set  in  a  very  clear  light  in  the  following  extract,  "He 
saith  not  and  to  seeds.  It  was  one  particular  kind  of  posterity 
which  was  intended  :  but  as  of  one  —  which  is  Christ;  i.e.  to 
the  spiritual  head,  and  all  believers  in  him,  who  are  children  of 
Abraham  because  they  are  believers,  ver.  7.  But  why  does  the 
apostle  say,  not  of  seeds ,  as  of  many  ?  To  this  it  is  answered 
that  Abraham  possessed  in  his  family  two  seeds,  one  natural, 
viz.,  the  members  of  his  own  household  ;  and  the  other  spiritual, 
those  who  were  like  himself  because  of  their  faith.  The  prom 
ises  were  not  of  a  temporal  nature  ;  had  they  been  so  they 
would  have  belonged  to  his  natural  seed ;  but  they  did  not, 
therefore  they  must  have  belonged  to  the  spiritual  posterity  ; 
and  as  we  know  the  promises  of  justification,  &c.,  could  not 
properly  be  made  to  Christ  himself,  hence  we  must  conclude 
his  members  to  be  here  intended,  and  the  word  Christ  is  put 
here  for  Christians.  It  is  from  Christ  that  the  grace  flows 
which  constitutes  Christians.  Christians  are  those  who  believe 
after  the  example  of  Abraham ;  they  are  therefore,  the  spiritual 
seed.  Christ,  working  in  and  by  these,  makes  them  the  light 
and  salt  of  the  world ;  and  through  them  under  and  by  Christ, 
are  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  blessed.  This  appears  to 
be  the  most  consistent  interpretation,  though  every  thin"-  must 
be  understood  of  Christ  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  of 
Christians  only  through  him." —  Clarke  in  loco. 

That  this  view  is  correct,  is  evident  from  verses  7th  and  29th 
of  the  same  chapter  which  read  thus  :  "  Know  ye  therefore  that 
they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham," 
i.e.  they  arc  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  Again,  "  And  if 
ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs  according 
to  promise."  Now  what  truth  do  we  arrive  at  by  this  view  of 
the  subject  and  these  plain  declarations  of  scripture  ?  It  is  this  : 
All  true  Christians  by  virtue  of  their  union  with  Christ,  by 
faith  constitute  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  that  it  is 
through  them  that  the  nations  of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed. 


SeC.  1.]  UNIVEKSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  13 

True  Christians  are  Christ  tfpon  earth.  They  aro  his  represen 
tatives  ;  hence  he  said  to  his  disciples  when  he  sent  them  forth, 
"  He  that  receiveth  you  rcceiveth  me."  Matt.  10  :  40.  Hav 
ing  ascertained  from  the  scriptures  who  are  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
we  come  to  inquire  : 

2.  What  is  meant  by  the  phrases  all  nations,  all  kindreds, 
fyc.  ?  Do  they  according  to  Scripture  usage  always  mean  a 
universal  ivhole  ?  What  is  their  import  in  this  promise  ? 

The  phrase  all  nations,  as  used  in  the  scriptures,  does  not 
always  indicate  a  universal  whole.  By  a  universal  whole  we 
mean  the  whole  posterity  of  Adam.  This  expression  is  some 
times  used  to  denote  a  great  number.  The  Saviour  says,  "  Is 
it  not  written,  my  house  shall  be  called  of  all  nations  the  house 
of  prayer?"  Mark  11:17.  Does  the  Saviour  mean  to  con 
vey  the  idea  that  the  whole  race  of  Adam  should  call  the  temple 
a  house  of  prayer?  Certainly  not ;  for  millions  had  died  before 
the  temple  was  known,  and  millions  have  died  since  without  a 
knowledge  of  it.  The  Psalmist  says,  "All  nations  compassed 
me  about,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  will  I  destroy  them." 
Ps.  118  : 10.  The  fact  here  brought  out  is,  the  great  number 
of  his  enemies,  and  not  that  the  whole  of  Adam's  posterity  had 
surrounded  him,  as  all  will  see.  Other  instances,  were  it  neces 
sary,  might  be  given  where  this  phrase  is  used  in  a  restricted 
sense  ;  and  although  Universalist  writers  profess  to  see  nothing 
but  the  whole  human  family  made  happy  in  the  future  state  by 
the  promise  in  question,  because  of  the  universal  language  em 
ployed,  yet  in  considering  Matt.  25  :  32,  where  the  same  phrase 
occurs,  they  can  see  with  great  clearness  "all  nations  "  gathered 
at  Jerusalem's  destruction  !  "All  kindreds."  Great  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  Peter's  use  of  this  in  connection  with  the  prom 
ise,  Acts  3  :  25,  as  though  Universalism  must  be  the  truth  of 
God  on  account  of  it.  In  Piev.  1 : 7,  we  read,  "  Behold  he 
cometh  with  clouds ;  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they 
also  which  pierced  him  :  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall 
wail  because  of  him."  Upon  this  the  following  is  submitted  : 
2* 


14  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

1.  Believers  in   the  second  personal  advent  of  Christ  do  not 
consider  this  phrase   to    be   here   used   in  a   universal   sense. 
Wailing  is  expressive  of  distress,  grief  and  sorrow.     But  they 
are   warranted,  by  many  other  scriptures,  to  believe  that  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  will  be  a  time  of  joy  to  saints  ;  hence, 
they  restrict  the  application  to  those   who   shall  be  unprepared 
to  meet  Christ  as  their  judge. 

2.  But  if,  as  Universalists  will  have  it,  the  scene  here  de 
scribed  refers  to  some  temporal  calamity,  then  certainly  the  ex 
pression  "all  kindreds  of  the  earth,"  is  not  used  to  designate 
the  whole  human  race,  as  must  be  obvious  to  all. 

The  conclusion  is,  that  these  expressions  are  not  always  em 
ployed  in  the  scriptures  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  universal  whole, 
but  are  sometimes  used  when  a  part  only  is  intended,  and  the 
sense  of  such  phraseology  must  be  determined  either  by  the 
connection  in  which  it  is  found,  or  by  other  plain  declarations  of 
scripture  respecting  the  same  subject.  The  question  now  prop 
erly  comes  up,  in  what  sense  are  these  expressions  used  in  the 
promise  under  consideration  ?  Do  they  express  a  universal 
whole,  or  are  they  used  in  a  restricted  sense?  We  answer  with 
out  hesitancy  that  they  are  used  in  a  restricted  sense,  and  not 
as  meaning  the  whole  race  of  man,  but  as  expressive  of  the 
general  spread  of  the  gospel  in  the  earth.  This  will  be  shown 
by  indisputable  scripture  evidence  under  the  next  head. 

3.  Our  next  inquiry  is,   what  is  the  blessing  promised, 
and  where  and  how  is  it  received? 

It  has  been  already  admitted  that  certain  unconditional  bless 
ings  are  secured  to  the  whole  human  race  by  virtue  of  the  atone 
ment,  but  we  should  never  learn  this  fact,  we  think,  from  the 
Abrahamic  promise.  The  gracious  and  universal  effects  of  the 
atonement  named,  we  conceive  to  be  taught  in  other  scriptures, 
while  the  promise  in  question  assures  us  of  the  triumphs  of 
Christ's  kingdom  in  the  earth.  It  is  conceived,  too,  that  the 
particular  blessing  to  which  reference  is  had,  is  that  of  justifi- 
pation  by  faith,  as  preparatory  to  a  well  grounded  hope  for  the 


Sec.  1.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  15 

future.     Gal.  3:8;  Heb.  6  : 18,  19.     We   propose  now  to  ex 
amine  the  prominent  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where  this 
promise  is  quoted  or  referred  to,  and  see  to  what  results  we  are 
led.     The  first  we  present  in  proof  of  our  position  is  found, 
Acts   3:21,  26.      "For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  a 
Prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your  breth 
ren,  like  unto  me  ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things,  whatsoever  he 
shall  say  unto  you.     And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  every  soul 
which  will  not  hear  that  Prophet,  shall  be  destroyed  from  among 
the  people.     Yea,  and  all  the  Prophets  from  Samuel,  and  those 
that  follow  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  have  likewise  foretold 
these  days.     Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,   and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abra 
ham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the   earth  be 
blessed.     Unto  you  first,  God  having  raised  up  his  Son  Jesus, 
sent  him  to  bless  you,  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his 
iniquities."      (Sec.  XXX.)     The  instruction  imparted  by  the 
apostle  in  this  passage  is  very  plain.     He  states  that  Moses  fore 
told  the  advent  of  Christ  among  the  Jews  as  their  prophet  or 
lawgiver,  and  that  they  were  to  hear  or  obey  him  in  all  things 
whatsoever  he  should  say,  and  declares  to  them  that  they  should 
be  punished  for  disobedience.      He   then   states   that   all   the 
prophets  from  Samuel,  and  those  that  follow  after,  had  foretold 
these  wonderful  days  of  the  Messiah's  reign  already  commenced. 
They  are  then  reminded  of  the  fact  that  by  natural  descent  they 
were  the  children   of  the  prophets  and  of  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  and  as  such  unto  them  first,  God  having  raised 
up  his   Son  in  the  flesh,  sent  him  to  bless  them,  in  accordance 
with  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  in  turning  every  one   of 
them  from  their  iniquities.     It  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader, 
we  think,  that  Peter  in  this  passage  is  speaking  of  the  fact  that 
the  Jew.s  were  the  first  to  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them, 
and  that  gospel  blessings  in  this  world  are  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham.     It  is  clear  too,  that  he  is  speaking 
conditionally,  when  he  says  to  the  Jews  that  God  sent  his  Son 


16  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Jesus  "  to  bless  you  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his 
iniquities,"  for  all  the  Jews  were  not  turned  from  their  iniqui 
ties,  neither  have  they  been  to  this  day.     Observe,  God  sent  his 
Son  fast  to  bless  them,  i.e.  the  Jews.     This  blessing  is  the  one 
promised  to  Abraham,  (vcr.  25.)     But  how  shall  we  reconcile 
the  Apostle's  words  with  the  assumption  that  the   promise  is  to 
have  its  fulfilment  in  the  resurrection  state  ?     Are  the  Jews  to 
be  blessed  first  in  eternity  ?     Are  they  to  be  turned  from  in 
iquity  in  the  future  state  ?     Are  the  disobedient  to  be  destroyed 
from  among  the  people  beyond  the  grave  ?     Admit  the  fact  that 
the  promise  secures  the  triumph  of  the   gospel,  in  this  world, 
among   "the  nations  of  the  earth,"  and  all  is  plain.     Christ 
"came  into  his  own,"  (John  1  : 11,)  i.e.  the  Jews,  and  in  the 
commission  given  to  his  disciples  they  were  to  preach  in  "  all 
nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem"  (Luke  24  :  47,)  and  thus  the 
offers  of  the  gospel  were  first  made  to  the  Jews.    In  strict  obedi 
ence  to  this  command  the  apostles  as  they  went  forth  preached 
first  to  the  Jews.     Thus  did  Paul  and  Barnabas.    Acts  13  :  4G. 
"  Then  Paul  and  Barnabas  waxed  bold,  and  said,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  word  of  God   should  FIRST  have  been  spoken  to  you  : 
but  seeing  ye  put  it  far  from  you,   and  judge  yourselves  un 
worthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."     This 
was   spoken    to    Jews  who    rejected    gospel    blessings.      We 
learn  then  from  the  very  passage  in  which  the  noted  expression, 
"  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth"   is  found,   that  the  promise 
under   consideration  indicates  the  spread  of  the  gospel  in  this 
world,  and  not  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  eternity. 

The  following  is  from  the  inspired  apostle  to  the  Gentiles, 
who  well  understood  the  Abrahamic  promise,  and  he  conjoins 
the  blessing  promised  with  faith.  Gal.  3:8:"  And  the  scrip 
ture  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed."  Now  how  should  this  read  to  harmo 
nize  with  Universalist  views?  Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that 
Universalism  asserts, 


SeC.  1.]  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    TI1E    BIBLE.  17 

1.  That  the   Abrahamic  promise   pledges  the  unconditional 
salvation  of  all  men.^ 

2.  That  "  none  can  be  saved  from  all  moral  evil  here." 

3.  That  the  resurrection  "  is  a  victory  in  which  a  world  is  re 
deemed  and  saved." 

To  accord  with  these  propositions,  we  are  at  liberty  to  para 
phrase  the  apostle's  words  thus  :  "  The  scripture,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  make  the  whole  human  family  holy  and  happy  after 
death,  by  the  resurrection,  independent  of  their  own  agency, 
preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  shall 
all  mankind  be  blessed  in  eternity."  Is  this  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit  ?  What  a  violent  wresting  of  the  Scriptures  error  de 
mands  !  In  the  text  quoted,  we  have  the  apostle's  application  of 
the  promise,  and  learn, 

1.  That  the  blessing  named  is  justification. 

2.  That  the  blessing  is  to  be   secured  in  this  life,  as  it  is 
"  through  faith."     None  expect  to  obtain  salvation  in  the  future 
state  by  an  exercise  of  faith  there ;  for  "  faith  comcth  by  hear 
ing  "  the  preached  word.     Rom.  10  :  14-17. 

3.  That  conditions  are  sometimes  implied  when  not  expressed. 
This  is  a  prophetical  promise,  given  in  absolute  language,  with 
out  naming  the  conditions  ;  but  Paul,  in  applying  this  promise 
to  personal  salvation,  explains  it  conditionally. 

In  Rom.  4:  11,  22,  24,  we  read,  "And  he  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcisecl,  that  he  might  be  the 
father  of  all  them  that  believe  though  they  be  not  circumcised, 
that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them  also.  And  there 
fore  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.  Now  it  was  not 

*  When  the  expression  "  unconditional  salvation"  is  used  in  these  pages,  it 
has  reference  to  the  future  or  final  salvation  of  men.  This,  it  is  asserted,  is 
accomplished  independent  of  man's  agency  here.  The  death  of  Christ, 
even,  has  nothing  to  do  with  procuring  it,  (Sec.  CV.,)  and  man's  conduct 
here  cannot  procure,  prevent,  or  modify  it.  See  a  quotation  in  point  from 
Williamson,  Sec.  XCV.  Universalists.  with  inconsistency,  admit  present 
salvation  to  be  conditional. 


18 


UNIYERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 


•written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed  to  him.  But  for 
us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead."  Again,  Gal.  3  :  26, 
29:  "For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus  ;  and  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  Again,  vcr.  9  :  '-So  then,  they 
which  be  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  In  these 
passages  the  apostle  makes  a  conditional  application  of  this 
promise  which  need  not  be  misunderstood,  showing  most  conclu 
sively  that  none  can  enjoy  the  blessing  promised  to  Abraham 
but  such  as  are  imitators  of  his  faith.  Take  the  following  from 
Acts  13  :  32,  33.  "  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how 
that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God  hath  ful 
filled  the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he  hath  raised  up 
Jesus  again."  So  far  is  the  apostle  from  intimating  that  this 
promise  is  to  have  its  fulfilment  in  eternity,  that  he  explicitly  de 
clares  that  "  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children  ;  " 
i.  e.  he  has  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  the  gospel  is  preached, 
sinners  believe,  and  thus  the  promise  is  fulfilled. 

Take  another  passage,  found  in  Rom,  15  :  8,  11.  "  Now  I 
say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the 
truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  father?, 
and  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God  for  his  mercy;  as  it  is 
written  :  For  this  cause  will  I  confess  thee  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  sing  unto  thy  name.  And  again  he  saith,  llejoice  ye  Gen 
tiles/ with  his  people."  Here  we  have  the  same  view  presented 
concerning  the  promise,  namely,  the  spread  of  the  gospel  in  the 
Avorld,  not  only  among  the  Jews,  but  Gentiles  also.  Zacharias, 
the  priest  and  the  father  of  John,  refers  to  this  promise,  and 
states  its  design.  Luke  1  :  68-75.  "Blessed  be  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel ;  for  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people, 
and  hath  raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of 
his  servant  David,  as  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  proph 
ets,  which  have  been  since  the  world  began,  that  we  should  be 
saved  from  our  enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us. 


Sec.   1.]  UNIYEKSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  19 

To  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to  remember 
his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  swore  to  our  father  Abra 
ham,  that  he  would  grant  unto  us  that  we,  being  delivered  out 
of  the  hands  of  our  enemies,  might  serve  him  without  fear,  in 
holiness  and  righteousness  before  him  all  the  days  of  our  life." 
Does  Zacharias  even  intimate  that  its  fulfillment  is  to  be  accom 
plished  by  the  salvation  of  all  men  after  death  ?  Nothing  of  the 
kind.  He  explains  the  design  of  the  promise,  which  is  of  course 
spiritual  in  its  nature,  to  be  a  deliverance  in  this  world  from  the 
bondage  of  our  spiritual  enemies,  that  we  may  serve  God  without 
slavish  fear  "  in  holiness  and  righteousness  before  him  all  the 
days  of  our  life''' 

It  has  now  been  shown  most  convincingly,  we  think,  from  the 
word  of  God  that  that  part  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
under  examination,  finds  its  fulfillment  in  this  world  by  the 
spread  of  the  gospel  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  that  it  is 
conditional,  and  that  none  can  enjoy  its  blessings  but  the  spir 
itual  children  of  Abraham,  or  believers  in  Christ,  such  being- 
Abraham's  seed,  and  the  only  legitimate  heirs  according  to 
promise. 

At  this  point  let  us  introduce  the  testimony  of  a  Universalist 
minister.  Mr.  French  delivered  the  Occasional  Sermon  before 
the  Maine  Convention  of  Universal} st«,  at  Thomaston,  June  28, 
1843,  in  which  he  rebukes  his  brethren  for  some  of  their  gross 
perversions,  and  this  promise  among  the  rest;  and  says,  "We 
would  not  with  unholy  hands  tear  clown  what  has  been  so  long  in 
rearing,  but  you  will  permit  us  to  query  if  the  promise  to  Abra 
ham,  Gen.  22  :  18,  may  have  any  reference  to  the  future  world  ? 
Is  it  consistent  to  quote  it,  especially  if  we  deny  that  life  and 
immortality  are  brought  to  view  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  And 
do  not  Peter,  Acts  3  :  26,  and  Paul,  Gal.  chap.  3,  both  apply 
that  promise  to  this  life  ?  Let  our  preachers  be  on  good  terms 
of  consistency,  if  we  would  make  advancement.  Why  should 
we  furnish  sticks  for  our  enemies  to  beat  us  with  ?  " —  Banner, 
Aug.  5,  1843. 


20  UXIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Whether  or  not  all  the  ministers  of  this  order  understand  the 
import  of  this  promise,  is  not  for  us  to  determine ;  but  we  fear 
that  all  have  not  the  candor  of  Mr.  French  in  expressing  their 
convictions. 

There  is  one  consideration  mo;^  we  gather  from  the  subject 
which  should  forcibly  impress  us  all  as  moral  beings.  It  is  this  : 
that  in  order  to  possess  a  good  hope  of  heaven,  all  should  exert 
their  moral  agency  to  become  heirs  of  promise.  Hear  the  apos 
tle  Paul  upon  this,  Heb.  6:  17-20.  "Wherein  God,  willing 
more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise  the  immuta 
bility  of  his  counsel,  confirmed  it  by  an  oath ;  that  by  two 
immutable  things,  in  which  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we 
might  have  strong  consolation,  who  have  fled  for  refuge  to  lay 
hold  upon  the  hope  set  before  us ;  which  hope  we  have  as  an 
anchor  of  the  soul,  both  sure  and  steadfast,  and  which  entereth 
into  that  within  the  veil,  whither  the  forerunner  is  for  us  entered, 
even  Jesus." 

In  view  of  this  scripture  let  us  inquire, 

1.  Who  are  the  heirs  of  promise?     Not  all  men,  but  only 
such  as  are   Christ's.     Gal.  3  :  29.     All  are  not  Christ's,  for 
"  if  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his." 
Rom.  8  :  9.     The  heirs  of  promise  are  believers  in  Christ,  but 
"  all  men  have  not  faith."     2  Thess.  3  :  2. 

2.  Who  have  this  strong  consolation,  and  the  hope  which  en 
ters  into  heaven  where  Jesus  is  ?     Do  all  men  have  it  ?     No  : 
for  ''the  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness;   but  the 
RIGHTEOUS  HATH  HOPE  in  his  death."     Prov.  14 :  13.     Some 
are  "  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  having  NO  HOPE, 
and  without  God  in  the  world."  Eph.  2  :  12. 

A  great  play  of  words  has  been  made  upon  the  oath  of  God, 
named  in  this  passage,  as  though  this  were  something  in  favor  of 
Universalism,  and  thus  taking  for  granted  what  can  never  be 
proved,  viz  :  that  the  promise  which  is  confirmed  by  an  oath,  se 
cures  the  unconditional  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future  state. 
This  we  have  shown  again  and  again  to  be  false,  and  it  is  re- 


Sec.  2.]  imvERSALiSM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.  21 

futed  in  this  very  connection  ;  for  to  whom  aro  these  blessings 
named  secured  by  the  promise  and  oath  of  God,  and  who  have 
the  hope  of  heaven  like  an  anchor  to  the  soul  ?  Not  all  men, 
surely,  but  such  as  "  have  FLED  FOR  REFUGE  to  lay  hold 
upon  the  hope  set  before  them."  Has  the  neglecter,  the  swear 
er,  the  drunkard,  the  extortioner,  the  self-righteous  man  fled  for 
refuge  ?  To  name  this  is  to  refute  it.  Universalism  the  c '  Abra- 
hamic  Faith  !  "  What  a  gross  perversion  !  The  extension  of 
Christ's  kingdom  in  the  earth  is  contemplated  by  it,  and  the 
blessing  of  justification  is  secured  to  all  believers  as  preparatory 
for  heaven. 

II.  Matt.  23  :  13.  "  Woe  unto  you  scrttcs"  &c. 

Says  Mr.  "Whittemore,  "  Jesus  reproved  the  Pharisees  for 
shutting  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  '  Woe  unto  you,  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  !  for  ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
against  men  ;  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye 
them  that  are  entering  to  go  in.'  Matt.  23  :  13.  These  Phari 
sees  were  never  charged  with  having  shut  up  the  kingdom  of 
hell-,  that,  they  appear  to  have  kept  open.  But  they  shut  up 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Jesus  desired  to  have  all  men  enjoy 
his  kingdom  ;  and  we  are  assured  that  at  last  all  shall  know  the 
Lord,  from  the  least  unto  the  greatest.  They  will  then  all  have 
entered  the  gospel  kingdom."  Guide,  p.  44.  Does  Mr.  W. 
admit  that  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven  "  here  means  salvation,  or 
the  place  of  it  in  the  future  world,  or  does  he  believe  in  a  future 
hell?  No:  neither  of  them.  Of  the  former  he  says,  "the 
phrase  '  kingdom  of  heaven,'  in  its  common  use  in  the  New 
Testament,  does  not  refer  to  the  future  world,  but  to  the  reign 
of  the  gospel  in  this  world."  Guide,  p.  88.  Would  he  allow 
that  the  Pharisees  kept  men  from  entering  future  heavenly 
bliss?  If  so,  then  Universalism  is  a  fable.  Yet  he  presents  a 
contest  between  Christ  and  the  Pharisees  on  these  two  states, 
confined  as  he  will  have  them  to  this  world,  as  evidence  of  the 
salvation  of  all  men  in  eternity  1  Truly  a  man  must  be  very  ig- 
3 


22 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 


norant  or  wicked  to  construct  such  an  argument  for  such  a  pur 
pose  ;  for,  remark,  this  is  the  whole  of  one  of  his  "  One  Hun 
dred  Arguments,"  to  prove  Universalism,  i.  e.  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  the  resurrection  state. 

But  it  is  not  quite  enough  for  his  purpose  that  Jesus  reproved 
the  Pharisees  thus  ;  so  it  is  added,  that  "  we  are  assured  that  at 
last  all  shall  know  the  Lord,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest." 
The  passage  to  which  Mr.  W.  refers,  is  found  Jer.  31  :  33,  34. 
By  turning  to  it,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  covenant  is  not  made 
with  the  whole  human  family,  but  with  "  the  house  of  Israel." 
"  For  they  shall  all  know  me."  Who  ?  Not  the  whole  race  of 
man,  but  the  "  HOUSE  OF  ISRAEL  ;  "  v.  33.  Now  what 
ever  the  blessings  herein  contained,  they  are  promised  only  to 
the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  application  of  these  words  to  all 
men,  to  prove  that  they  will  all  be  saved  in  heaven,  is  but 
another  instance  of  gross  perversion.  The  prophet  is  speaking 
of  a  prosperous  state  of  things  in  this  world,  and  not  of  the  sal 
vation  of  all  our  race  in  eternity. 

III.   "  For  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  Gal.  3  :  28. 

"  Paul  saith  to  the  Galatians,  '  There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
promise.'  According  to  what  promise  ?  Answer:  According 
to  the  promise  of  God  to  Abraham,  that  in  him,  and  his  seed 
[Christ]  all  the  nations,  kindreds,  and  families  of  the  earth 
shall  be  blessed.  In  Christ,  therefore,  none  of  the  distinctions 
are  known  of  which  Paul  there  speaks.  '  Ye  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus.'  That  point  being  settled,  he  adds,  '  and  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  [as  he  had  proved,]  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  [that 
is,  not  by  lineal  descent,  but  spiritually,]  and  heirs  according  to 
promise.'  '  Guide,  p.  49. 

Here  we  have  the  argument  with  all  its  comeliness,  built  upon 
a  gross  perversion  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  assumed  that  "  ail " 


SeC.  4.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  23 

in  the  text,  means  the  whole  human  race.  But  is  it  so  ?  Look 
at  the  context,  and  it  will  be  seen  who  "  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus."  "Je."  Who?  All  men?  No,  but  believers;  for 
such  he  is  addressing.  They  are  those  who  had  ' '  put  on 
Christ,"  v.  27,  and  such  only.  Taking  those  scriptures  which 
are  applied  by  the  inspired  penman  to  a  particular  class  of  men 
where  the  words  all  and  every  chance  to  occur,  and  applying 
them  to  the  whole  race  of  man,  has  been  a  very  common  work 
with  writers  of  this  school.  This  may  deceive  the  ignorant,  but 
it  can  never  deceive  the  man  who  is  acquainted  with  his  Bible. 
The  perversion  of  the  Abraharnic  promise,  to  make  out  the  argu 
ment,  is  exposed  in  Sec.  1. 

IV.  "  Whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of  Man, 
it  shall  he  forgiven  him  ;  hut  whosoever  speaketh  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  he  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world, 
neither  in  the  world  to  come."  Matt.  12  :  32  ;  Mark  3  :  29  ; 
Luke  12  :  10. 

The  course  pursued  by  Universalist  writers  upon  this  text,  is 
both  evasive  and  sophistical.  The  author  of  the  Guide  labors 
first  to  contradict  the  Son  of  God  by  quoting  Isa.  1:18,  and 
1  John  1  :  7-9,  to  show  that  all  sins  are  pardonable,  "  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  not  excepted  ;  "  then  to  show  that  the  text 
is  a  Hebraism,  and  is  not  to  be  understood  absolutely.  To  sus 
tain  this,  a  quotation  is  given,  purporting  to  be  from  Grotius, 
the  correctness  of  which  we  have  not  the  means  of  ascertaining. 
He  then  brings  to  his  aid  the  Doway,  a  Catholic  translation. 
Now  we  suppose  the  Catholic  priests  are  about  as  honest  as  Uni 
versalist  expositors,  and  are  equally  anxious  to  promulgate  the 
doctrine,  in  opposition  to  the  Saviour,  that  sins  of  all  kinds  are 
pardonable,  since  they  blasphemously  assume  the  prerogative  to 
pardon  sin  :  and  to  admit  that  some  are  unpardonable,  would 
curtail  their  revenues.  After  stating  that  a  Catholic  writer  as 
serts  that  there  is  no  sin  which  cannot  be  forgiven  on  repentance, 
Mr.  Whittemore  says,  it  is  a  "  conclusion  to  which  many  of  the 


24  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

very  best  orthodox  writers  Lave  come,  that  all  manner  of  sin  and 
blasphemy  is  more  easily  forgiven  than  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Who  these  "  many  of  the  very  lest  orthodox  writers  " 
are,  we  are  not  informed.  This  is  probably  a  mere  make-weight 
thrown  in  without  any  foundation-in  truth.  And  then  if  it  is  in 
accordance  with  the  Divine  government  that  all  kinds  of  sins  are 
pardonable,  what  folly  to  talk  of  some  sins  being  more  easily 
forgiven  than  others  !  Cannot  Omnipotence  pardon  one  sin  as 
easily  as  another?  For  Mr.  W.  to  labor  to  show  that  any  sin 
"if  duly  and  sincerely  repented  of"  may  be  forgiven,  is  only 
to  raise  a  false  issue  ;  for  none,  to  our  knowledge,  ever  disputed 
it.  If  there  is  evangelical  repentance,  God  is  bound  by  the 
principles  of  his  own  government,  as  revealed  in  his  word,  to 
forgive ;  while  the  same  principles  bind  him  not  to  forgive  if 
men  do  not  repent.  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  places  men 
where  they  will  not  and  cannot  repent  as  the  gospel  requires, 
and  of  course  they  will  never  be  forgiven.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
same  class  of  sinners  (Heb.  6  :  4-6)  when  he  says,  "  it  is  im 
possible  ...  to  renew  them  again  unto  repentance."  (Sec. 
LXXXVIII.) 

Nothing  is  gained  to  Universalism  by  limiting  this  sin  to  the 
Jews,  who  attributed  the  miracles  of  Christ  to  the  power  of  the 
devil,  as  Dr.  Clarke  and  some  others  are  disposed  to  do  ;  for  if 
those  Jews,  and  those  only  who  were  guilty  of  this  died,  unfor- 
given,  and  are  to  suffer  eternal  damnation,  Universalism  is  just 
as  false  as  though  millions  suffered  it.  Nearly  two  pages  of  the 
Guide  are  occupied  by  an  effort  well  calculated  to  bewilder  the 
superficial  reader  of  the  Bible.  He  is  first  carried  to  Heb.  9  : 
26,  and  1.  Cor.  10  :  11,  where  the  expressions  "  end  of  the 
world  "  and  "  ends  of  the  world  "  occur  ;  then  to  Epli.  2  :  7, 
where  the  phrase  "  ages  to  come  "  is  found.  It  is  then  assert 
ed  that  the  passage  in  Matthew  under  consideration  should  read, 
"shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  this  world,"  or  aye,  which 
ended  when  the  gospel  age  began  ;  "  neither  in  the  world,"  or 
age,  "  to  come,"  that  is,  the  age  which  succeeded  it.  The  au- 


SeC.  4.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  25 

thor  of  the  Guide  then  adds ;  ' '  Now,  although  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  to  be  forgiven  neither  in  the  then  exist 
ing  age  or  world,  nor  in  the  age  or  world  which  succeeded  it, 
yet  (mark,  reader,)  IN  THE  WORLDS  TO  COME,  [for  it  is  the  same 
Greek  word  in  Ephesians  which  you  find  in  Matthew,]  God  will 
show  the  exceeding  riches  of  his  grace."  The  sentiment  here 
put  forth  is  tin's  :  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall 
not  be  forgiven,  neither  in  the  Jewish  age,  neither  in  the  Chris 
tian  age,  but  in  the  ages  to  come  :  i.  e.,  after  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  ages  or  dispensations  have  passed  away,  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  be  forgiven.  The  Jewish  dispen 
sation  is  already  past,  and  the  Christian  dispensation  will  con 
tinue  till  the  end  of  time,  till  Christ  shall  deliver  up  the  king 
dom  to  the  Father.  1  Cor.  15  :  24.  It  is  in  the  future  world, 
then,  that  blasphemers  against  the  Holy  Ghost  are  to  be  par 
doned  ;  so  of  course  such  sinners  are  found  in  eternity  with  guilt 
and  condemnation  upon  them,  or  they  would  not  need  forgive 
ness  after  the  Christian  dispensation  is  past.  Now  if  guilt  is  in 
the  future  world,  there  must  be  misery,  and  thus  the  no-future 
suffering  doctrine  so  much  insisted  on  by  Mr.  W.  is  destroyed 
by  his  own  interpretations.  Truth  lies  in  a  straight  line,  but 
error  is  crooked  like  the  old  serpent  who  is  the  father  of  it. 
Again,  if  this  sin  is  not  to  be  forgiven  either  in  the  Jewish  or 
Christian  a^e,  then  those  who  commit  it  must  "  die  in  their 

O     " 

sins,"  and  those  who  die  thus  must  be  excluded  from  heaven 
where  Christ  has  gone.  John  8  :  21 ;  Acts  1  :  11.  So  nothing 
in  reality  is  gained  to  Universalism,  even  by  this  interpretation. 
But  the  Lord  from  heaven  has  brushed  away  at  a  stroke  all  this 
web  of  sophistry  which  has  been  thrown  around  his  truth ;  for 
as  if  he  foresaw  that  men  would  rise  up  in  these  last  days  and 
attempt  to  prevent  this  truth  of  his,  as  given  by  one  of  his  ser 
vants,  he  inspires  another  to  present  it  to  the  world  in  language 
not  to  be  quibbled  away.  Hear  him  :  "He  that  shall  blas 
pheme  against  the  Holy  Ghost  HATH  NEVER  FORGIVE 
NESS,  but  is  in  danger  of  ETERNAL  DAMNATION." 


28  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Mark  3:29.  If  "hath  never  forgiveness"  means  that  all 
shall  be  forgiven,  and  if  eternal  damnation  means  eternal  bliss 
in  heaven,  then  may  Universalism  be  true.  No  man  can  be  ex 
posed  to  that  which  does  not  exist,  and  if  no  such  thing  as  eter 
nal  damnation  exists,  then  was  Christ  a  deceiver.  Mark,  reader, 
this  was  addressed  to  Jews,  who  were  believers  in  eternal  dam 
nation.  That  the  Jews  so  believed,  is  fully  admitted  by  Univer- 
salist  writers.  (Sec.  CXXXII.)  Such  language  could  not 
fail  to  be  understood  by  the  Jews  as  teaching  endless  punish 
ment  ;  and  as  they  understood  it,  so  should  we. 

Since  writing  the  above,  a  pamphlet  has  come  to  hand,  by  J. 
F.  Witherell,  in  which  the  "  most  popular  objections"  to  Univer 
salism  are  "  fairly  stated,  candidly  examined  and  fully  an 
swered."  This  is  the  profession.  We  take  the  following 
entire  argument  from  the  work.  "Objection  4.  "The  BiUe 
teaches  that  some  sin  hath  never  forgiveness."  Well,  sup 
pose  it  does,  is  that  any  proof  that  all  mankind  will  not  even 
tually  be  made  holy  and  happy  ?  Surely  not.  I  say  to  the 
objector,  that  if  he  supposes  the  phrase,  hath  never  forgiveness, 
is  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  a  world's  salvation,  he  hath 
never  properly  understood  it ;  but  that  is  no  proof  that  he  never' 
will.  This  little  pamphlet  hath  never  been  burned,  but  that  is 
no  proof  that  some  good  brother,  who  cannot  endure  sound 
doctrine,  will  not  commit  it  to  the  flames.  Because  a  thing 
never  has  been,  that  of  course  is  no  reason  why  it  never  will 
be  ;  and  hence,  because  a  certain  sin  committed  eighteen  hun 
dred  years  ago,  at  that  time  had  not  been  forgiven,  that  is  no 
proof  that  it  has  not  long  since  been  forgiven  ;  especially  when 
the  Saviour  hath  positively  said  that  all  manner  of  sin  shall  bo 
forgiven."  p.  25.  Here  we  have  the  objection  "  fairly  stated, 
candidly  examined  and  fully  answered"  !  !  We  see  by  this, 
also,  what  kind  of  coin  passes  current  with  the  order ;  for  in  the 
author's  note  to  the  reader,  in  which  he  boasts  of  its  ready  sale 
and  the  wonders  it  has  accomplished,  he  says,  "  It  received 
complimentary  notices  from  the  Universali^t  presses  throughout 


SeC.   5.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  27 

the  country,  and  was  cordially  approbated  by  our  minstering 
brethren  generally."  Such  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  Saviour's 
words  carries  its  own  antidote  to  all  honest  minds.  The  sense 
of  the  passage  is  this :  all  sins  are  pardonable  on  repentance, 
BUT  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  sin  formed  an 
exception  to  the  rule,  hence,  Luke  reports  the  Saviour  thus : 
"Whosoever  shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him  ;  but  unto  him  that  blasphemeth  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  it  SHALL  NOT  be  forgiven  him."  ch.  12, 
v.  10. 

Y.  "And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved :  as  it  is  ivritten, 
There  shall  come  out  of  Sion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall  turn 
away  ungodliness  from  Jacob.  Rom.  11 :  26. 

The  first  clause  of  this  text  we  often  find  either  in  blazing, 
capitals  or  significant  italics,  to  prove  most  positively  that  the 
whole  of  the  Jewish  nation  are  to  be  saved  unconditionally  in 
the  future  world,  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  false,  as  we 
shall  now  show.  Here  let  us  inquire,  what  is  the  scope  of  the 
apostle's  reasoning  in  this  part  of  the  Epistle  ?  Is  he  laboring 
to  prove  that  all  the  Jewish  race  will  be  unconditionally  saved 
in  eternity  ?  Nothing  like  it.  In  the  9th,  10th  and  llth 
chapters  he  is  setting  forth  the  equal  privileges  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  under  the  gospel,  and  shows  that  the  Gentiles,  if  they 
believed,  should  share  in  its  salvation ;  and  that  the  Jews,  if 
they  disbelieved,  should  not  be  saved  by  its  provisions.  See 
chapter  11: 1-24.  Without  entering  into  detail,  a  few  points 
will  be  fixed  upon  connected  with  the  salvation  of  which  the 
apostle  is  speaking,  to  show  most  clearly  that  it  is  conditional, 
and  that  he  does  not  teach  the  absolute  certainty  of  the  salva 
tion  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  and  by  parity  of  reason  the 
whole  human  family,  but  a  different  sentiment.  The  course 
the  apostle  pursues  lies  with  mighty  weight  against  the  Univer- 
saiist  notion.  He  says,  in  this  same  epistle,  "  Brethren,  my 
heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  Israel  is,  that  they  might 


28  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

be  saved."1  Chap.  10  :  1.  Why  this  intense  emotion  on  the 
part  of  the  apostle,  if  he  was  confident  that  all  would  be  saved? 
What  should  we  think  of  a  Universalist  minister  in  our  day  who 
should  go  about  with  the  deep-toned  feeling  here  expressed, 
praying  that  a  particular  class  of  men  might  be  saved  ?  We 
should  think  that  his  practice  grossly  conflicted  with  his  theory. 
And  who  does  not  know  that  it  is  the  boasted  bliss  of  Univer- 
salism  that  it  delivers  its  votaries  from  all  such  trouble  about  the 
salvation  of  men.  Was  Paul  a  Universalist  ?  These  remarks 
are  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of 
future  salvation  when  he  says,  "  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be 
saved  ;"  for  this  has  not  a  single  mark  of  future  state  reference 
which  may  not  be  found  in  chap.  10:1-10-13  and  chap.  11 : 14. 
When  the  apostle  says,  "  So  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,"  he  is 
speaking  of  the  same  salvation  that  he  is  all  through  chapters 
10th  and  llth;  and  this  salvation  is  secured  by  confessing, 
believing,  and  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Chap.  10: 
9-13.  As  all  must  see,  we  think,  this  declaration  of  the  apos 
tle's  has  reference  to  that  salvation  which  is  the  result  of  saving 
faith  in  Christ  in  this  world,  as  preparatory  to  future  bliss. 
Whether  the  time  will  come  when  in  the  progress  of  Christianity 
all  the  Jews  who  shall  be  then  living  will  experience  this  salva 
tion,  or  whether  only  a  general  reception  of  it,  admitting  of 
exceptions,  is  indicated,  is  a  matter  about  which  good  men 
have  differed.  But  one  thing  is  clear :  all  God's  true  and 
persevering  Israel  shall  be  saved,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles  by 
birth,  for  Christ  "has  become  the  author  of  eternal  salvation 
unto  all  them  that  OBEY  him."  Heb.  5:9.  "All  are  not 
Israel  that  are  of  Israel,"  Rom.  9:0;  but  "  we  are  the  circum 
cision  (that  is,  the  true  Israel)  which  worship  God  in  the 
spirit  and  rejoice  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  have  no  confidence  in 
the  flesh."  Phil.  3:3.  We  shall  obtain  light  upon  this  subject 
by  examining  the  prophecy  referred  to  and  in  part  quoted  by 
the  apostle.  He  declares,  "all  Israel  shall  be  saved  ;"  and 
adds,  "  as  it  is  written."  Where  is  it  written?  In  Isa.  59  :  20, 


SeC.   5.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


29 


as  follows  :  "  And  the  Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto 
them  that  turn  from  transgression  in  Jacob,  saith  the  Lord." 
Here  we  see  who  the  Israel  are  to  be  saved  and  the  condition 
ally  of  their  salvation.  They  are  those  who  "  TURN  FROM 
TRANSGRESSION."  This  salvation,  then,  is  predicated  of 
God's  spiritual  Israel,  and  not  of  the  whole  Jewish  race.  But 
should  it  be  contended  still  that  the  apostle  has  virtually  said 
that  the  Deliverer  (Christ)  promised  he  would  turn  away  un 
godliness  from  all  the  Jewish  race,  i.  e.  all  of  them  who  have 
ever  lived,  now  live,  or  may  hereafter  live,  we  ask  when  this  is 
to  be  accomplished  ?  Is  it  to  be  accomplished  upon  the  Jews 
before  death  V  This  will  not  be  pretended,  for  tens  of  thousands 
of  them  have  died  in  their  iniquities,  Universalists  themselves 
being  judges.  Now  this  must  be  brought  about  either  before 
or  after  death,  for  we  cannot  possibly  conceive  of  the  soul  as 
existing  neither  in  the  body  nor  out  of  it.  As  it  must  be 
admitted  that  all  the  Jews  are  not  turned  from  their  sins  in  this 
life,  it  follows  that,  if  ever,  they  must  be  turned  from  ungodliness 
after  death  ;  and  if  so,  ungodliness  or  sin,  and  consequently 
misery,  must  exist  after  death,  and  thus  the  favorite  doctrine  of 
modern  Universalists,  that  death  puts  an  end  to  sin  and  misery,  is 
all  a  fable.  Truth  never  contradicts  itself.  All  God's  faithful 
Israel  will  be  saved  both  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to 
come  ;  and  there  is  no  authority,  as  we  conceive,  for  denying 
that  the  time  is  coming  when  all  the  Jews  then  living  upon  the 
earth  shall  embrace  the  Messiah.  But  this  idea  furnishes  no 
evidence  that  all  men,  or  even  the  Jewish  race,  shall  be  saved 
in  the  future  state.  In  view  of  the  very  common  perversion  of 
this  text,  how  timely  the  rebuke  of  Mr.  French,  one  of  the 
ministers  of  the  order,  in  a  sermon  before  the  Maine  Conven 
tion  of  Universalists,  as  follows  :  "  We  as  a  denomination,  have 
advocated  the  doctrine  that  all  men  shall  be  saved.  But  in 
our  zeal  to  bring  an  abundance  of  evidence,  have  we  not  caused 
some  of  our  proof  texts  to  bear  the  marks  of  violent  wresting  ? 
For  instance,  these  words  of  Paul  have  been  adduced  as  proof 


30  UXIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

that  all  the  Jews  shall  be  happy  after  death  :  "  and  so  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved."  Horn.  11:20.  But  does  this  passage  have 
any  more  reference  to  their  future  state,  than  it  does  to  the 
preservation  of  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  time  of  the  flood  ? 
And  yet,  as  if  we  had  not  enough  of  our  own,  we  are  at  the 
expense  of  importing  such  arguments  and  such  methods  of 
proof." — Banner,  Aug.  5,  1844. 

VI.     "  He  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin." — Rcm.  G  :  7. 

If  a  man  availing  himself  of  his  Universalist  license,  dies  by 
drunkenness  or  suicide,  this  text  is  called  into  requisition  on  the 
funeral  occasion,  to  prove  most  conclusively  that  he  has  been  so 
wise  as  to  rid  himself  of  sin  and  all  its  consequences  by  his 
hasty  departure.  In  an  able  work  before  us  the  perversion  of 
this  passage  is  exposed  as  follows:  "Persons  are  said  to  be 
dead  in  several  different  senses.  A  person  is  dead  when  the 
connection  between  body  and  soul  is  dissolved ;  at  other  times  a 
person  is  said,  in  Scripture  language,  to  be  dead  when  his  soul 
has  lost  the  favor  of  Grod  ;  and  at  other  times,  a  person  is  said 
to  be  dead  who  is  crucified  to  the  world  and  the  world  crucified 
to  him.  Now  the  question  is,  in  which  of  these  senses  docs  the 
apostle  use  the  word  dead  in  this  text  ?  I  answer  without  hesi 
tation  in  the  sense  of  being  crucified  to  the  world.  Look  at  the 
context.  See  how  the  apostle  introduces  the  figure:  "How 
shall  WE  (Christians)  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer 
therein?"  vcr.  2.  Here  then  you  see  that  the  persons  who 
were  dead  were  the  living  apostle  and  his  Christian  brethren  at 
Rome,  and  the  death  which  was  upon  them  was  a  death  to  sin. 
So  in  the  following  context,  the  same  idea  is  repeated  :  "  Now 
if  we  (Christians)  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we 
shall  also  live  with  him."  Here  then  you  see  that  the  apostle 
'is  not  speaking  of  the  death  of  the  body.,  but  on  the  contrary, 
of  that  death  which  is  a  crucifixion  to  the  world." — Russell. 


Sec.   7.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OS    THE    BIBLE. 


31 


VII.  "  For  none  of  us  livdli  to  himself,  and  no  man  dieth 
to  himself.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord ;  and 
whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord;  whether  we  live  there 
fore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's" — Rom.  14  :  7—8. 

Mr.  Whittemore  builds  one  of  his  arguments  upon  this  pas 
sage  to  prove  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  says  :  "  The  terms 
dead  and  living  evidently  signify  all  the  race.     Of  course  all 
the  human  race  arc  Christ's  forever." — Guide,  p.  48.     Here  is 
another  instance  in  which  the  children's  bread  is  cast  to  the  dogs. 
Now  we  say  that  these   terms  do  not   evidently  signify  all   the 
human  race.     Suppose  that  after  a  battle  an  officer  should  re 
ceive  orders  to  repair  to  the  field  and  take  charge  of  ' '  the  dead 
and  living  j"  should  we  infer  from  that  that  he  was  to  take  charge 
of  the  whole  human  race  ?     By  no  means.     Paul  is  speaking  of 
Christ's  lordship  over  believers  and  none   else,  as  we  conceive. 
The  context   binds  us  to  this.     He  is  addressing  Christians  and 
not  all  men.     He  is  cautioning  them  against  uncharitably  judg 
ing  each  other  concerning  things   indifferent,  and  adds,   "For 
none  of  US,"  Who  ?     All  men  ?     No,  but  Christians,  "  liveth 
to  himself,"  &c.    "  For  whether  we  live,  ive  live  unto  the  Lord ; 
and  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord."     Do  all  men  live 
and  die  unto  the  Lord  ?     Does  the  drunkard,  the  swearer,  the 
ncglecter,  the  self-righteous  live  unto  the   Lord,  and  do  such 
die  unto  the  Lord  ?     But  suppose  we  admit  that  Christ's  lord 
ship  over  the  whole  human  family  is  intended,  what  then  ?  Does 
it  follow  as  a  conclusion  that  all  will  be  holy  and  happy  ?     Cer 
tainly  not ;  for  according  to  this  assumption  he  is  now  Lord  over 
the  human  race  and  has  been  for  ages  past,  but  the  whole  of 
mankind  are   not   saved.     This  being  the  fact,  we  can  see  no 
reason  why  he  may  not  exercise  his  lordship  to  all  eternity,  and 
still  the  sufferings  of  some  of  the  race  continue.     For  all  men 
to  be   subjects  of  God's  government  is  one  thing,  but  for  all 
men   to  be  made  holy  and  happy  in  the  future  world   is  quite 
another.     So  we  see  that  take  either  view  of  it  we  please,  Uni- 
versalism  cannot  be  possibly  wrung  out  of  the  passage. 


32  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"VIII.  "  But  the  heavens  and  the  earth  which  are  now,  by 
the  same  word  are  kept  in  store,  reserved  unto  fire  against  the 
day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly  men" — 2  Pet.  3:7. 

Instead  of  an  explanation,  as  the  purchasers  of  his  book  had 
a  right  to  expect  from  the  statement  in  his  preface,  the  author 
of  the  Guide  has  given  this  striking  text  the  go-by  as  follows  : 
"  This  passage  has  been  frequently  used  to  prove  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  material  earth,  and  a  day  of  judgment  in  the  future 
state.  We  have  shown  repeatedly  in  these  pages  that  God's 
judgments  are  in  the  earth.  But  as  this  text  is  not  generally 
adduced  in  support  of  strict  endless  misery,  we  pass  it  here." 
He  then  refers  us  to  three  or  four  works  where  he  says  the  text 
is  explained ;  works  which  not  one  in  a  hundred  of  his  readers 
will  ever  see.  "  God's  judgments  are  in  the  earth."  The 
reader  will  turn  to  Sec.  LI.  where  this  idea  is  examined.  He 
says,  "  But  as  this  text  is  not  generally  adduced  in  support  of 
strict  endless  misery,  'we  pass  it  here."  Observe,  the  apostle 
speaks  not  only  of  the  day  of  judgment,  but  also  of  the  "perdi 
tion  of  ungodly  men"  Do  not  Christians  generally  believe 
the  perdition  of  ungodly  men  to  be  endless  misery?  Most 
certainly  they  do,  and  Mr.  Whittemore  must  have  known  it. 
We  go  to  Balfour's  Essays,  one  of  the  books  referred  to  by  Mr. 
W.,  and  he  says,  "  this  passage  refers  to  the  day  of  God's 
temporal  vengeance  on  the  Jews." — p.  2GO.  He  also  states 
with  much  confidence  respecting  ver.  13,  that  "  it  is  universally 
allowed,  that  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  refer  to  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  was  to  succeed  the  Jewish  dis 
pensation,  and  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament." — p.  261. 
Mr.  Balfour  was  either  wanting  in  honesty,  or  ignorant  of  the 
subject  upon  which  he  wrote,  for  we  find  by  consultation  that 
instead  of  its  being  "  universally  allowed"  such  commentators 
as  Clarke,  Scott,  Chalmers,  Dwight,  Wesley,  Storr,  Rosenmiil- 
ler,  and  Benson  are  directly  against  him,  and  yet  this  baseless 
assertion  comprises  the  main  force  to  be  found  in  his  evasion  of 
this  passage.  Universal ists  profess  to  be  full  of  wonder  that 


Sec.   9.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  33 

the  word  hell  occurs  no  oftener,  if  there  is  any  future  pun 
ishment  taught  in  the  Bible.  But  we  ask,  if  the  glowing 
descriptions  of  judgment  and  punishment  found  so  often  in  the 
Bible  had  their  fulfilment  in  the  destruction  of  the  Jews,  is  it 
not  very  strange  that  the  expression  Jerusalem,  or  Jerusalem's 
destruction,  is  NEVER  found  in  connection  with  such  descrip 
tions  in  the  New  Testament  ?  Yet  such  is  the  fact.  Examine 
the  context,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  not  the  least  evi 
dence  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  Jerusalem's  destruction, 
or  that  those  for  whom  he  wrote  once  entertained  the  thought 
that  that  city  would  be  spoiled  by  the  Romans.  The  people 
addressed  were  Hebrew  Christians,  who  had  been  educated  in 
the  belief  of  a  future  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly 
men.  These  doctrines  were  believed  both  among  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  This  is  admitted  by  Universalist  writers.  Now  can 
it  be  entertained  for  a  moment  that  Peter  would  take  this  great 
event  believed  in  by  them,  and  use  it  as  a  figure  to  represent 
the  destruction  of  one  city  ?  He  brings  up  historical  facts,  viz  : 
the  creation  and  the  deluge,  and  then  institutes  a  comparison, 
not  between  those  events  and  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  city, 
but  between  those  events  and  the  passing  away  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,  and  the  appearance  of  a  new  material  system  in 
their  place.  The  thoughts  are  majestic,  but  they  are  not  the 
dress  of  fiction  or  poetry.  The  context,  the  comparison,  the 
language  used,  the  belief  of  the  people  addressed,  the  absence 
of  every  thing  indicating  the  Jerusalem  catastrophe,  all  bind  us 
to  believe  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  day  of  judgment,  as 
commonly  understood,  and  of  the  eternal  perdition  of,  not 
merely  Jewish  men,  but,  all  ungodly  men. 

IX.     And  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God  winked  at,  but 

now  commandeth  all   men  every   where  to    repent ;  because  he 

hath  appointed  a  day  in   ivhich  lie  ivill  judge  the   world   in 

righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he   hath  ordained ;    whereof 

4 


34  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead"— Acts  17  :  30,  31. 

The  perversion  would  be  so  glaring  that  but  few  Universal- 
ists,  it  is  believed,  have  ventured  to  refer  this  text  to  Jerusa 
lem's  destruction,  for  all  would  at  once  see  the  absurdity  of 
making  the  apostle  urge  the  Jewish  calamity  as  a  reason  why 
the  Grecians  should  repent  of  their  idolatry.  But  certain  men 
are  never  at  a  loss  for  expedients,  especially  when  a  text  of 
Scripture  stands  in  their  way,  so  they  will  have  it  that  the  day 
of  judgment  appointed  is  the  gospel  day.  Guide,  p.  176. 
But  we  are  not  quite  ready  to  receive  this  forced  and  unnatural 
interpretation. 

That  Paul  did  not  have  reference  to  the  gospel  day  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  he  uses  the  future  tense.  "  He  (God)  hath 
appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge,"  &c.  Now  the 
gospel  day  had  then  come.  Paul  was  then  preaching  the  gospel, 
and  the  gospel  had  spread  and  was  then  spreading  rapidly,  as  all 
know  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  church.  Fur 
thermore,  Paul  when  speaking  of  the  gospel  day  uses  the  pres 
ent  tense,  and  says,  "  Behold  now  is  the  day  of  salvation."  2 
Cor.  6  :  2.  Observe,  St.  Paul  does  not  say  to  the  Grecians, 
God  hath  appointed  this  day  in  which  he  now  judges  the  world  ; 
but  he  speaks  indefinitely  and  of  the  future  :  "  Pie  hath  appoint 
ed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge."  By  this  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  is  a  perversion  to  apply  these  words  to  the  gospel  day. 

But  why  should  the  apostle  speak  of  the  world's  being  judged 
in  righteousness  at  a  set  time  or  in  the  gospel  day.  According 
to  Universalism,  to  talk  of  a  day  appointed  in  which  God  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  is  the  height  of  folly.  Are  we 
not  told  that  every  man  is  judged,  rewarded  and  punished  ac 
cording  to  his  works  as  he  passes  along  ?  If  this  be  so,  the 
world  is  no  more  judged  in  righteousness  in  the  gospel  day,  than 
it  was  under  any  former  dispensation.  It  is  obvious  too,  that 
the  apostle  here  presents  the  day  of  judgment  as  a  motive  of 
alarm,  as  a  reason  why  "  all  men  every  where  should  repent." 


SeC.   9.]  UNIVEESALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  35 

But  what  had  the  Athenians  or  any  other  people   to  fear  from 
the  gospel  day,  especially  if  Universalism   is  the  gospel,  which 
proclaims  bliss  for  all,  and  hell  for  none  in  the  future,  whether 
they  repent  in  this  life  or  not.     Mr.  Balfour  enters  into  a  labored 
Greek  criticism,  in  his  Essays,  to  make  this  passage  mean  that 
Christ  is  about  to  rule  the  Roman  empire.     But  where  do  we 
find  the  fulfilment  of  this  prediction  ?     Did  Christ  ever  rule  the 
Roman  empire  ?     Are  we  pointed  to  the  reign  of  Constantine  ? 
We  deny  that  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  governs,  he  governed 
the  Roman  empire  then.     His  "  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 
But  admitting  that  he  did  govern  the  Roman  empire  in  the  time 
of  Constantine,  his  reign  did  not  commence  till  A.  D.  313,  so 
that  Mr.  Balfour's  about  to  rule  did  not  take  place  till  about 
three  hundred  years  after  the  declaration  was  made  !     What  in 
fluence  could  that  day  exert  upon  the  Greeks  at  Athens  to  move 
them  to  repentance  ?    And  how  absurd  the  thought  that  Paul 
took  this  blind  method  to  teach  the  Grecian  Philosophers  that 
God  had  appointed  a  gospel  day  which  was  nearly  three  hundred 
years  in  the  future  in  which  Christ  should  rule  the  Roman  em 
pire  !     Admit   the  truth  declared,  namely  :  a  future  judgment, 
and  all  is  clear.     The  Greeks  admitted  the  doctrine  of  future 
retributions ;   they  believed  that  Minos  and  Radamanthus  would 
be  the  judges,  while  the  apostles  taught  that  Christ  would  judge 
the  world ;    hence,  when  Paul   spoke  of  the  judgment   of  the 
world,  they  could  but  understand  him  as  teaching  a  future  judg 
ment.    We  see  by  this  how  to  account  for  the  fact  that  they  raise 
no   opposition  to  the    doctrine  of  a  judgment,  but  when  they 
heard  of  the  resurrection,  "some  mocked."    Ver.  32.  The  first 
named  doctrine,  so  far  as  the  idea  of  a  future  judgment  is  con 
cerned,  was  received  by  them,   while  the  resurrection  was  re 
jected.     The   apostle    evidently   speaks  of  the  same  judgment 
here  that  he  does  in  Rom.  2:16;  14  : 11,  12 ;  2  Cor.  5  : 10, 
1 1 ;  Heb.  6  :  2-9,  27.    See  by  the  index  where  these  scriptures 
are  examined. 


3G  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

X.  And  have  hope  towards  God,  which  they  themselves  also 
allow,  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of 
the  just  and  unjust."  Acts  24  : 15. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem  to  some,  this  text  has  been  adduced 
in  proof  of  Universalism.  "  Paul  hoped  for  the  resurrection  of 
all  men  which  he  would  not  have  done  if  a  part  were  to  be 
endlessly  miserable  ;  therefore  Paul  was  a  Universalist."  This 
in  substance  is  the  argument. 

This  argument  is  built  upon  the  assumption  that  we  believe 
that  the  resurrection  procures  and  fixes  the  eternal  doom  of  the 
sinner,  whereas  we  entertain  no  such  opinion.  The  wickedness 
of  men  in  the  present  life  is  the  cause  of  their  suffering  in  the 
future  state,  and  not  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  So  we  see 
upon  our  principles  that  Paul  could  hope  for  the  resurrection, 
without  hoping  that  some  would  be  eternally  miserable.  He  is 
however  giving  a  statement  of  his  belief  rather  than  an  expres 
sion  of  his  desire.  Dr.  Clarke's  exposition  of  this  text  is  cor 
rect.  "And  have  hope  towards  God,  &c.  I  not  only  do 
not  hold  anything  by  which  the  general  creed  of  this  people 
might  be  altered,  in  reference  to  the  present  state  ;  but,  also,  I 
hold  nothing  different  from  their  belief  in  reference  to  a  future 
state ;  for  if  I  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  it  is  what  themselves  allow."  Clarke  in  loco.  We  have 
most  striking  evidence  from  this  very  passage  that  Paul  was  not 
a  Universalist.  "  And  have  hope  towards  God,  which  they  them 
selves  allow."  What  did  the  Jews  allow  concerning  the  resur 
rection  ?  Did  they  allow  that  all  would  be  holy  any  happy  in 
the  resurrection  ?  Were  the  Jews  who  believed  in  a  resurrec 
tion  Universalists  ?  By  no  means ;  for  Universal  is  ts  themselves 
assert  that  they  believed  in  the  endless  punishment  of  a  part  of 
mankind.  Now  if  Paul  was  a  Universalist,  he  must  have 
believed  that  all  would  be  holy  and  happy  in  the  resurrection, 
which  was  a  very  different  thing  from  the  Jewish  belief.  How 
then,  we  ask,  could  he  in  truth  declare  that  he  believed  as  they 
did  concerning  the  resurrection  ?  Did  Paul  dissemble  ?  Or, 


SCC.    11.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  37 

rather,  is  it  not  rendered  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam  that  he  was  not 
a  Universalist ;  that  it  never  entered  his  mind  that  all  men  were 
to  be  saved  by  the  resurrection  ?  We  have  another  instance 
where  the  apostle  declared  himself  a  Pharisee,  and  a  believer  in 
the  resurrection,  and  thus  secured  to  himself  the  favor  of  the 
Pharisees.  Acts  23  :  6-9.  If  Paul  was  a  Universalist,  he 
could  not  have  failed  of  preaching  the  salvation  of  all  men  in 
connection  with  the  resurrection,  for  no  Universalist  in  our  day 
would  be  guilty  of  such  an  omission.  But  were  the  Pharisees, 
those  staunch  believers  in  endless  punishment,  so  friendly  to  a 
Universalist  preacher,  as  to  espouse  his  cause  on  the  announce 
ment  of  the  very  doctrine  whicli  Universalists  in  our  time  con 
tend  teaches  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  declare  (v.  9)  that 
"  we  find  no  evil  in  this  man  ?  "  Header,  think  of  this. 

XI.  "  For  whosoever  will  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it ;  and 
whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it."  Matt. 
16  :  25.  Parallels,  Matt.  10:39;  Luke  17  :  33  ;  John  12  :  25. 
On  the  last  named  text,  see  Sec.  LXYIII. 

We  are  told  (  Guide,  p.  108)  that  the  word  rendered  soul  in 
the  26th  verse,  is  the  same  as  the  one  in  the  25th  verse  rendered 
life;  and  that  the  life  here  spoken  of  is  natural  life.  One  doc 
trine  cherished  by  Mr.  Whittemore  is,  that  the  future  existence 
"  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things,  as  it  seems  to  us,  be  affected  by 
the  conduct  of  men  in  this  life."  Notes  on  Par.  p.  354.  If  this 
be  true,  we  ask  how  does  the  man  who  will  lose  his  natural  life 
for  the  sake  of  Christ,  find  it,  or  (John  12  :  25)  "  keep  it  unto 
life  eternal,"  any  more  than  he  will  save  his  natural  life  ?  Upon 
this  principle  the  man's  eternal  life  is  just  as  secure  who  dies 
opposing  Christ,  as  is  his  who  dies  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  These 
words  of  the  Saviour  present  a  pyramid  in  argument  against  the 
notion  that  man's  conduct  here  does  not  affect  his  condition  in 
the  future,  which  all  the  sophistry  of  its  advocates  cannot  over 
turn.  We  have  never  seen  an  attempt  to  explain  this  text  in 
any  of  their  writings.  It  is  found  in  the  Guide,  but  all  the  au- 


UNIVERSALTSM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

thor  does  with  it  is  to  show  that  the  Greek  word  rendered  soul 
in  v.  26,  is  the  same  as  the  one  rendered  life  in  this,  and  con 
tends  that  both  mean  natural  life.  The  obvious  sense  of  the 
text  is  this  ;  "  Whosoever  will  save  his  natural  life,  by  neglect 
ing,  through  fear  or  otherwise,  to  do  his  Christian  duty,  shall 
lose  it ;  that  is,  shall  lose  his  eternal  life  :  and  whosoever  will 
lose  his  natural  life  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it ;  that  is,  shall  find 
eternal  life."  That  we  are  correct  in  understanding  eternal 
life  as  used  in  antithesis  with  the  life  of  the  body,  may  be  seen 
by  the  parallel  passage,  John  12  :  25.  "Tie  that  loveth  his 
life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  hateth  his  life  shall  keep  it  unto 
eternal  life."  See  Sections  XII  and  LXVIII. 

XII.   "  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  (jain  the  whole 
world,  and  lose  his  own  soul."  Matt.  16  :  26. 

It  is  contended  that  the  word  soul  in  this  text  might  be  ren 
dered  life,  to  which  we  have  no  objection  so  far  as  our  argument 
is  concerned.  But  what  life  is  meant  ?  Not  temporal  life  sure 
ly,  for  Christ  is  urging  them  to  risk  that  in  his  cause  :  for  he 
says,  "  Whosoever  will  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it ;  and  whoso 
ever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it,"  v.  25.  That 
there  are  two  kinds  of  life  named  here  is  evident,  for  no  man 
who  saves  his  natural  life  will  lose  it,  and  none  who  lose  their 
natural  life  for  Christ  will  save  their  natural  life.  All  must  see 
that  the  life  gained  by  losing  our  natural  life  for  Christ,  must  be 
a  life  in  the  future  state  ;  that  is,  eternal  life  :  and  also  that  the 
life  lost  by  an  unwillingness  to  surrender  natural  life  for  Christ, 
must  be  eternal  life.  That  we  are  to  understand  eternal  life 
here  as  used  in  antithesis  with  natural  life,  is  clear  from  the  par 
allel  text.  John  12  :  25.  (Sections  XI  and  LXVIII.) 

The  Saviour  is  urging  his  disciples  to  take  up  their  cross,  and 
do  their  duty  by  following  him  through  every  danger ;  and  as 
motives  to  stimulate  to  action,  he  assures  them  that  if  they  were 
called  to  be  martyrs  for  his  sake,  they  should  find  eternal  life 
after  the  death  of  the  body ;  but  if  they  should  save  or  seek  to 


SeC.   13.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  39 

save  natural  life  at  the  expense  of  conscience  and  casting  aside 
tbe  cross,  they  should  lose  eternal  life  in  the  world  to  come.  He 
then,  to  set  it  home  with  force,  inquires,  "  What  shall  it  profit  a 
man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul,"  (life,) 
i.  e.  his  eternal  life.  It  will  require  but  little  attention  to  the 
text  and  context  to  see  that  the  loss  of  eternal  life  is  indicated 
here.  Indeed,  no  other  construction  can  be  given  without  re 
ducing  it  to  nonsense.  But  admitting,  as  Universalism.  con 
tends,  that  the  death  of  the  body  is  intended,  then  'the  text  lies 
with  weight  against  that  theory ;  for  a  question  in  this  form  is  a 
strong  negation.  The  sense  is,  that  if  a  man  in  his  avaricious 
pursuits  were  to  gain  the  whole  world  and  die  in  the  effort,  he 
would  in  reality  gain  nothing.  Now  all  unite  in  the  sentiment 
that  heavenly  bliss  is  inconceivably  greater  than  everything  en 
joyed  in  the  present  life,  even  by  the  most  holy ;  hence,  the 
apostle  says  of  himself  "to  die  is  gain."  Universalism  says, 
this  gain  is  for  all ;  even  though  some  gain  the  whole  world  by 
their  wicked  and  avaricious  schemes,  yet  by  deatli  they  shall 
gain  as  much  as  Paul,  for  it  teaches  heaven  for  all  and  hell  for 
none, —  that  all  shall  be  equal.  (Sec.  XC.)  It  goes  farther. 
It  teaches  that  the  more  wicked  men  are  here,  the  more  will  they 
gain  by  death,  inasmuch  as  the  wicked  suffer  more  in  this  life 
than  the  pious,  therefore  escape  more  by  death,  and  enter  into 
the  same  bliss  with  the  most  exalted  saints.  The  Saviour  speaks 
of  a  character  which  shall  gain  nothing  by  the  death  of  the 
body  ;  but  Universalism  says  all,  whether  holy  or  unholy,  shall 
be  gainers  by  death.  As  Christ  is  to  be  considered  a  compe 
tent  teacher  in  these  matters,  the  conclusion  is,  Universalism 
must  be  false.  The  Saviour  is  speaking  either  of  the  loss  of 
future  and  eternal  life,  or  of  the  loss  of  natural  life  ;  either  of 
which  is  fatal  to  Universalist  views. 

XIII.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  the 
mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of 
the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills  ;  and  all 
nations  shall  flow  unto  it."  Isa.  2:  2. 


40  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I 

We  here  give  one  of  the  "  One  Hundred  Arguments," 
entire.  "  It  is  said  that  all  nations  shall  How  unto  the  moun 
tain  of  the  Lord's  house, —  a  figurative  representation  of  the 
covenant  of  the  gospel."  Guide,  p.  39.  Well,  suppose  it  is 
such  a  representation,  does  it  prove  the  salvation  of  all  in  the 
future  state  ?  A  man  must  be  brought  to  a  great  strait  to  con 
struct  such  an  argument  to  prove  IJniversalism.  The  connec 
tion,  as  all  may  see  who  will  consult  the  chapter,  shows  that  the 
glorious  triumphs  of  Christianity  over  heathen  nations  in  this 
world  is  prophesied  here,  and  not  the  salvation  of  all  men  in 
eternity.  But,  then,  the  word  all  is  in  the  passage,  so  it  must 
mean  Universalism  ! 

XIV.  "  I  will  also  give  theefor  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that 
thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth.1"  Isa. 
49:  6. 

This  is  brought  in  argument  by  Mr.  Whittcmore  to  prove  his 
favorite  doctrine  ;  and  he  says  of  it,  (  Guide,  p.  41,)  "  In  this 
verse  the  prophet  affirms  that  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  should 
not  be  confined  to  the  Jews.  "I  will  give  thee  for  a  light  to 
the  Gentiles ; "  for  what  purpose  ?  Answer  :  "  That  thou  may 
est  be  my  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth."  Mr.  W.  then 
asks,  "Is  this  consistent  with  the  supposed  fact,  that  countless 
millions  of  the  human  race  shall  never  hear  of  the  blessings  of 
the  gospel  ?  "  To  adopt  the  same  method  with  another  text,  it 
can  be  proved  that  the  whole  human  family  were  made  holy  and 
happy  nearly  three  thousand  years  ago.  The  Psalmist  says,  (Ps. 
98  :  3.)  "  All  the  ends  of  the  earth  HAVE  SEEN  the  salva 
tion  of  our  God."  Is  this  consistent  with  the  supposed  fact  that 
millions  of  the  human  race  are  this  moment  sinning  and  suffering 
to  an  alarming  extent  ?  Now  if  by  "  salvation  unto  the  ends  of 
the  earth,"  we  are  to  understand  the  holiness  of  all  in  heaven, 
and  if  the  Psalmist  declared  three  thousand  years  ago  that  "  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth  have  seen  the  salvation  of  our  God,"  it  is 
quite  clear  that  the  whole  human  race  were  saved  in  heaven  at 


SeC.  15.]     UN1VEESALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

that  time  !  -The  passage  under  consideration  declares  the  gen 
eral  spread  of  the  gospel  in  the  earth,  and  giving  it  a  future 
state  reference  to  serve  Universalism,  is  a  gross  perversion. 

XV.   "  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven."     Matt.  6  :  9. 

As  the  question  of  divine  paternity  involves  several  texts,  it 
will  he  considered  somewhat  at  length  in  this  section.     It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  those  our  Saviour  taught  to  pray  were  his 
disciples,  which  is  destructive  to  the  idea  that  this  prayer  teaches 
that  all  men  are  the  children  of  God.     But  it  may  be  replied 
that  Christ  said  to  the  multitude,  (Matt.  23  :  1-9,)   that  "  one 
is  your  father  which  is  in  heaven."     Admitting  that  the  Saviour 
meant  to  teach  that  God  was  the  father  of  that  multitude,  then 
there  is  nothing  gained  to  Universalism,  unless  it  can  he  shown 
that  this  relation  secures  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future 
state.     This,  then,  is  the  point  at  issue  :  is  God  the  father  of  all 
men  in  such  a  sense  as  to  secure  their  final  holiness  and  happi 
ness?     We  admit  that  there   is  a  sense  in  which   God  is  the 
father  of  all  animate  and  inanimate  creation,  and  of  course  the 
father  of  all  men.     He  is  the  father  of  the  rain,   (Job  38  :  28,) 
that  is,  he  produces  the  rain.     The  prophet  inquires,  (Mai.  2  : 
10,)   "  Have  we  not  all  one  father?     Hath  not  one  God  created 
us?  "       Said  a  heathen  poet,  and  Paul  adopted  it,  (Acts  17  : 
28,)   "For  we  also  are  his  offspring."     These  passages  teach 
us  that  God  is  a  father  in  the  sense  of  creator.     Frequent  ap 
peals  are  made  to  human  sympathy  in  connection  with  this 

subject. 

The  argument,  brought  into  a  small  compass,  stands  thus : 
God  is  the  father  of  all.  No  earthly  parent  would  inflict  endless 
punishment  upon  his  children.  God  is  better  than  earthly 
parents  ;  therefore  he  will  not  inflict  such  punishment  upon  his 
creatures,  but  will  make  them  all  holy  and  happy.  To  make 
human  sympathy  the  basis  of  such  a  conclusion,  may  deceive  the 
unthinking ;  but  those  who  reflect,  will  see  that  the  originators  of 
such  arguments  are  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  making  the 
4* 


42  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Almighty  altogether  such  an  one  as  themselves.  This  mode  of 
argument  lies  with  all  its  weight  against  matter  of  fact,  namely, 
the  present  sufferings  of  the  human  race.  It  will  avail  nothing 
to  say  that  present  suffering  shall  result  in  the  good  of  all  in  the 
end,  that  it  is  only  a  disciplinary  process,  such  as  a  kind  father 
would  adopt  for  the  good  of  his  children.  A  kind  earthly  parent 
may  be  under  the  painful  necessity  of  inflicting  discipline, 
because  it  is  not  in  his  power  to  reform  his  children  by  any  other 
means ;  but,  we  ask,  is  the  Almighty  under  such  necessity  ? 
Reasoning  from  the  attributes  of  God,  as  Universalists  are  in  the 
habit  of  doing,  and  asserting  that  all  will  be  saved  because  God 
has  almighty  power,  infinite  wisdom,  and  unbounded  goodness, 
they  cannot  contend  for  a  moment,  with  any  consistency,  that 
God  is  under  the  necessity  of  making  the  race  of  man  suffer  six 
thousand,  or  individuals  scores  of  years,  before  he  can  make  them 
holy  and  happy.  Certainly  it  must  have  been  as  easy  for  the 
Almighty  to  have  prevented  evil,  as  it  is  to  destroy  it.  He 
stood  in  the  relation  of  father,  the  same  before  Adam  fell  as  he 
now  does ;  and  if  the  paternal  character  of  God  is  not  pledged 
to  save  men  from  committing  sin  now,  how  can  we  view  it  as  a 
pledge  that  all  shall  be  saved  from  the  results  of  sin  ?  Again, 
if  it  is  consistent  with  the  paternal  character  of  God  that  sin  and 
misery  should  exist  six  thousand  years,  it  may  be  equally  con 
sistent  with  his  paternal  character  that  some  may  suffer  endlessly. 
(Sec.  CXIV.)  Making  human  sympathy,  which  is  ever  liable 
to  lead  us  wrong,  the  test  of  the  principles  of  the  Divine  govern 
ment,  and  the  true  index  of  the  future  condition  of  man,  is  not 
only  dangerous  to  man,  but  is  highly  dishonorable  to  God ;  for 
he  is  made  by  it  as  bad  as  the  worst  of  men. 

Let  us  illustrate  this.  The  Lord  rained  fire  and  brimstone 
upon  the  Sodomites,  and  destroyed  them.  Would  a  kind  earthly 
parent  treat  his  children  in  this  way  ?  Certainly  not.  Then 
God  is  not  a  kind  father  !  A  parent  has  a  family  of  children, 
all  happy  and  in  perfect  health.  If  he  is  a  kind  parent,  he  will 
ardently  desire  to  perpetuate  their  happiness.  But  what  should 


SeC.   15.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BILLE. 

we  think  of  him,  if,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  consequences, 
he  suffers  a  disease  to  come  among  them  which  mars  their  beauty, 
destroys  their  hoaltfi,  and  renders  them  wretched  all  their  days, 
when  he  could  have  prevented  it  as  well  as  not  ?     We  should 
think  him  a  fiend  incarnate.     Now  if  human  action  and  sympa 
thy  are  to  govern  our  views  of  God,  what  character  shall  we 
give  him  ?     The  first  pair  were  holy  and  happy  ;  but  God  not 
only  failed  to  prevent  sin,  but,  according  to  some  leading  Uni- 
versalist  writers,  is  the  author  of  it  (Sec.  LXXXY)  ;  and  mil 
lions  are  this  moment  groaning  with  untold  agonies,  as  a  conse 
quence.     To  accord  with  Universalist  notions,  how  are  we  to 
view  him ;  as  a  kind  father,  or  a  fiend  incarnate  ?     The  latter, 
most   certainly ;    and   thus  God   is  dishonored.     Again,  what 
should  we  think  of  the  parental  character  of  a  man  who  having 
the  power  to  mould  the  will  and  affections  of  his  son  into  perfect 
love  and  obedience  to  himself,  and  thus  render  all  painful  disci 
pline  unnecessary,  but  instead  of  so  doing  should  suffer  his  son  to 
remain  in  disobedience,  and  continue  to  inflict  the  stripes  ?     We 
should  think  him  a  hard-hearted  wretch.     Universalists  repre 
sent  God,  by  their  arguments  upon  his  perfections,  as  able,  not 
only  to  have  prevented  evil,  but  to  destroy  it  now ;  yet  instead 
of  doing  so,  he  has  been  inflicting  stripes  upon  his  children  for 
thousands  of  years.     Would  a  kind  father  do  so  ?     Never.     So 
God  is  not  a  kind  father  ! 

In  view  of  such  reflections,  as  a  result  of  the  reasonings  of 
this  class  of  writers,  might  Jehovah  not  inquire  concerning  them 
as  he  did  of  certain  wicked  men  anciently,  "  If  I  then  be  a 
father,  where  is  mine  honor?  "  Mai.  1  :  6.  The  sympathies 
of  our  nature  can  never  be  a  just  rule  by  which  to  determine 
what  is  right  in  the  Divine  government ;  for  earthly  parents  are 
not  always  governed  by  true  mercy  nor  strict  justice.  The  son 
of  a  former  governor  of  Kentucky  was  clearly  convicted  of  mur 
der,  but  was  saved  from  the  gallows  by  a  pardon  from  his 
father,  when  it  is  evident  he  would  have  withheld  pardon  from 
another  man  under  the  same  circumstances.  Here  paternal 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

sympathy  was  not  only  arrayed  against  justice,  but  also  against 
mercy ;  for  this  murderer  was  suffered  to  go  at  large,  and,  as  we 
have  been  informed,  took  the  life  of  another  man.  This  teaches 
us  the  folly  of  making  sympathy  the  rule  to  determine  what  God 
will  do,  who  does  not  act  from  sympathy,  but  from  his  own  im 
mutable  justice.  Universalism  would  have  God  a  father,  and 
nothing  else,  led  about  by  sympathy  and  caprice,  just  as  earthly 
parents  are.  But  the  Bible  not  only  represents  him  as  a  father 
to  his  children,  but  as  a  governor,  lawgiver  and  judge,  who 
will  take  vengeance  and  pour  out  wrath  upon  the  ungodly. 

In  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  the  wicked  Jews  set  up  an  argu 
ment  in  their  favor  from  the  Divine  paternity,  and  said,  "  We 
have  one  Father,  even  God.  (John  8  :  41,  42.)  The  differ 
ence  between  this  and  the -claim  set  up  by  Universalists  seems  to 
be  this  :  while  both  base  their  safety  upon  the  Divine  paternity, 
one  confined  the  Divine  favor  in  this  respect  to  the  Jews,  and 
the  other  extend  it  to  all  men.  The  Jews  counted  themselves 
perfectly  safe,  notwithstanding  their  great  wickedness,  because 
God  was  their  father.  Universalists  consider  all  men,  no  mat 
ter  how  vile  and  wicked,  perfectly  safe,  because  God  is  their 
father.  But  the  Saviour  denied  this  claim  of  the  Jews,  and 
said,  "  if  God  were  your  father,  ye  would  love  me ;  "  and  fur 
thermore  he  told  them,  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil ;  "  and 
whether  or  not  if  he  were  now  upon  earth  he  would  treat  those 
with  less  severity  who  are  wallowing  in  the  mire  of  sin,  jet 
basing  their  claims  of  heaven  on  the  Divine  paternity,  the 
reader  must  determine.  If  all  men  are  the  children  of  God  in 
such  a  sense  as  to  secure  their  eternal  salvation,  then  Elymas, 
the  sorcerer,  (Acts  13  :  10)  was  a  child  of  God ;  for  his  wicked 
ness,  according  to  Universalism,  could  not  destroy  that  relation. 
Paul  then  was  wrong  in  calling  him  a  child  of  the  devil,  and 
should  have  said,  "  0  !  full  of  all  subtilty  and  mischief,  thou 
child  of  God,  thou  enemy  of  all  righteousness  !  "  If  the  Bible 
teaches  that  all  men,  by  virtue  of  the  relation  they  stand  in  to 
£rod  as  Creator,  are  candidates  for  future  bliss,  then  we  are 


Sec.   15.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


45 


bound  to  believe  it ;  but  where  is  such  instruction  given  ?  One 
thus  saith  the  Lord  upon  this  subject,  would  do  more  upon  candid 
minds  than  all  the  arguments  based  upon  the  sand  of  human  sym 
pathy  that  have  ever  been  constructed.  Christ  called  the  wicked 
Jews  the  children  of  the  devil,  and  Paul  called  Elymas  a  child  of 
the  devil ;  and  John  says,  ' '  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  mani 
fest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil ;  whosoever  doeth  not  right 
eousness  is  not  of  God."  1  John  3  :  10.  Now  according  to 
Universalism,  a  man  may  be  a  child  of  God  and  a  child  of  the 
devil  at  the  same  time  !  But  let  us  view  this  subject  more  par 
ticularly  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures.  Gal.  4 :  4,  5.  "  But 
when  the  fulness  of  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made 
of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." 
Now  if  all  are  the  children  of  God  by  creation,  in  such  a  sense  as 
to  secure  eternal  bliss,  they  were  so  before  the  Saviour  was 
given,  for  God  was  their  Father  in  this  sense  prior  to  the  gift  of 
his  Son. 

Here  is  a  thought,  then.  If  all  were  sons,  and  their  salva 
tion  sure  as  a  consequence,  where  was  the  necessity  of  the  great 
sacrifice  of  Heaven  in  giving  his  Son  to  suffer  and  die  that  .they 
might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons  ?  This  single  text  demolishes 
at  once  all  the  arguments  that  our  opponents  have  ever  built 
upon  the  paternal  character  of  God.  Take  the  idea  of  adoption. 
What  is  it  ?  It  is  not  making  a  son  of  a  son,  but  it  is  making  a 
son  of  one  who  is  not.  John  1 :  12.  "  But  as  many  as  re 
ceived  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name."  Here  it  will  be  seen, 
that  they  were  not  the  children  of  God,  but  had  power  given  them 
to  become  such.  Rom.  8  :  14.  "  For  as  many  as  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  Are  all  men  led 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  But  few  will  assert  this.  The  passage 
clearly  implies  that  all  men  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  that  those  who  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  not  the 
sons  of  God.  Rom.  8  :  17.  "  And  if  children,  then  heirs  ; 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer 
with  him,  that  we  may  be  glorified  together."  This  supposes 
that  some  are  not  the  children  of  God,  and  that  such  as  are  not 
children  are  not  heirs  of  God,  neither  are  they  joint  heirs  with 
Christ.  The  apostle  says,  "  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him, 
that  we  may  be  glorified  together."  Now  according  to  Univer- 
salism,  all  men  are  sons  in  the  sense  to  be  heirs,  and  of  course 
all  will  be  glorified  with  Christ,  which  plainly  contradicts  the 
apostle's  reasoning.  Which  shall  we  believe  ?  That  this  has 
respect  to  future  glory,  is  clearly  established  by  the  scripture 
following  the  last  quoted  text.  (Sec.  GIL)  What  folly  to 
argue  the  salvation  of  men  from  a  relation  which  does  not  con 
stitute  them  heirs  of  heavenly  bliss  !  How  clear  it  is  from  these 
passages  that  salvation  depends  upon  the  relation  saints  sustain 
to  God  by  adoption,  and  not  by  any  relation  we  sustain  to  him 
by  creation.  Again,  "  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  Gal.  3  :  2G.  This  was  not  spoken  of 
all  men,  but  of  Christians,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  context ;  and 
shows  that  all  are  not  the  children  of  God  in  a  true  Christian 
sense.  We  might  extend  our  remarks,  and  produce  other  scrip 
tures  against  the  assumptions  of  Universalism  and  to  sustain  our 
views,  but  deem  it  unnecessary,  as  we  conceive  what  is  presented 
to  be  a  complete  refutation.  Remember,  reader,  that  it  is  not 
even  pretended  that  there  is  one  text  in  the  Bible  that  teaches 
directly  the  salvation  cf  all  men  in  the  future  state,  as  the  result 
of  the  Divine  paternity  ;  but  it  is  enforced  by  appeals  to  sym 
pathy,  and  inferences  drawn  from  a  mode  of  reasoning  most 
unsound  and  sophistical. 

XVI.  "  Therefore  I  endure  all  things  for  the  elect's  sake, 
that  they  may  also  obtain  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
with  eternal  glory.'''  2  Tim.  2  :  10. 

What  is  the  object  of  the  apostle's  intense  anxiety  and  labor  ? 
It  is  that  the  elect,  or  Christians,  may  obtain  the  salvation  which 
is  in  Christ,  with  eternal  glory.  It  seems  that  Paul  never  once 


Sec.   17.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

thought  that  all  men  were  sure  of  eternal  glory.  In  view  of  this 
plain  declaration,  how  false  is  Universalism !  How  unlike  is 
this  to  the  teachings  of  its  advocates,  who  boldly  tell  us  that  all 
are  sure  of  Christ's  salvation  and  eternal  glory.  Which  will 
you  receive,  reader ;  the  teachings  of  these  men,  or  those  of 
Paul,  the  Christian  apostle,  who  received  his  instructions  from 
heaven?  Yet  we  are  told,  with  great  confidence,  that  Paul  was 
a  Universalist !  The  great  labor  of  his  professed  successors  in 
this  faith  is,  to  make  the  people  believe  that  they  cannot  possibly 
fail  of  eternal  glory ;  and  let  one  of  them  express  a  doubt  upon 
this  point,  and  labor  like  Paul  that  men  may  obtain  it,  and  he 
would  at  once  be  cast  out  of  the  Universalist  synagogue. 

XVII.  "  For  I  will  not  contend  forever,  neither  will  I  be 
always  wroth  ;  for  the  spirit  should  fail  before  me,  and  the 
souls  which  I  have  made."  Isa.  57  :  16. 

"Is  this  declaration  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  endless 
misery?  According  to  that  doctrine,  will  not  God  contend  for 
ever  ?  will  he  not  be  always  wroth  ?  "  So  inquires  Mr.  Whitte- 
more,  (Guide,  p.  41)  ;  and  this  forms  one  of  his  "  One  Hun 
dred  Arguments."  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  passage  in  the 
Bible,  he  will  find  that  this  is  not  predicated  of  all  men  in  eter 
nity,  but  of  those  who  put  their  trust  in  the  Lord,  v.  13,  and  of 
those  who  .are  of  a  "  contrite  and  humble  spirit,"  v.  15.  It  has 
respect  to  the  gracious  chastisements  of  God  in  this  world,  and 
on  compliance  with  his  requirements  these  chastisements  were  to 
cease,  and  they  were  to  "  possess  the  land  and  inherit  his  holy 
mountain,"  v.  13;  "  while  the  wicked  are  like  the  troubled  sea 
when  it  cannot  rest,"  v.  20.  The  subject  upon  which  the 
prophet  is  speaking  is  not  the  salvation  or  damnation  of  all  or 
any  men  in  the  future  state  ;  and  to  base  an  argument  upon  it 
to  prove  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  next  world,  can  hardly 
be  called  sophistical.  It  is  another  instance  of  glaring  per 
version. 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

XVIII.  "  With  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of 
turning"  James  1  :  17. 

"  Now  faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for ."  Heb. 
11:  1. 

Before  us  is  a  tract  by  A.  C.  Thomas,  containing  a  set  of 
questions  artfully  constructed,  designed  to  bewilder  the  minds  of 
those  who  think  but  little,  and  in  that  state  to  plunge  them  into 
the  quagmire  of  Universalism.  The  following  is  a  sample. 

' '  Is  God   '  without  variableness  or  even  the  shadow  of  turn 


ing  ?' 


"  If  God  loves  His  enemies  now,  will  He  not  always  love 
them  ?  If  God  will  always  love  His  enemies,  will  He  not  al 
ways  seek  their  good  ?  " 

In  reply  we  ask,  Is  God  without  variableness  or  even  the 
shadow  of  turning  ?  If  God  hates  a  certain  class  of  persons, 
and  is  angry  with  them  now,  (Ps.  5  :  5  ;  7  :  11,)  will  he  not  al 
ways  hate  and  be  angry  with  them  ?  If  he  always  hates  and  is 
angry  with  them,  will  he  not  always  seek  their  hurt ;  and  if  so, 
will  they  ever  be  holy  and  happy?  See  Sec.  XOV.  also 
XXXVII.  Again  Mr.  T.  inquires,  "Is  faith  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for?"  Heb.  11:1.  Do  you  hope  for  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  of  endless  misery  ?  If  endless  misery  be  not  a  thing 
hoped  for,  can  it  form  any  part  of  the  Christian  faith?  " 

In  reply  we  ask,  Is  "  faith  the  substance  of  things  hoped 
for  ?  "  Do  you  hope  for  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  misery  in 
the  present  world  ?  If  misery  in  this  world  is  not  a  thing  hoped 
for,  can  it  form  any  part  of  the  Christian's  faith  ?  Did  primi 
tive  Christians  hope  for  the  dreadful  calamities  which  befel  the 
Jews,  including  innocent  women  and  children,  at  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  ?  If  it  was  not  a  thing  hoped  for,  could  it  have 
formed  any  part  of  their  faith  ?  Yet  Universalists  will  have 
it  that  the  destruction  of  that  city  formed  a  very  important  part 
of  their  faith,  so  much  so  that  almost  every  terrific  thing  they 
uttered  referred  to  that  event !  The  logic  is  this  :  If  a  man 
cannot  hope  that  his  friends  or  himself  will  suffer  in  the  state 


Sec.   19.]  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  49 

prison,  the  existence  of  such  a  place  where  criminals  are  pun 
ished,  must  form  no  part  of  his  belief !  Such  reasoning  is  well 
worthy  the  cause  it  is  designed  to  support.  Again  he  asks,  "  If 
God  would  save  all  mankind  but  cannot,  is  he  infinite  in  power  ? 
If  God  can  save  all  mankind  but  will  not,  is  he  infinite  in  good 
ness  ?"  What  of  force  there  is  here,  lies  with  all  its  weight 
against  matter  of  fact,  namely,  the  present  sufferings  of  our  race  ? 
Is  it  said  that  present  sufferings  are  disciplinary,  and  are  the 
means  God  adopts  to  secure  good  to  man  in  the  end  ?  We  beg 
leave  to  ask,  If  God  would*  SSLVQ  all  men  without  present  suffer 
ing,  but  cannot,  is  he  infinite  in  power  ?  If  he  can  save  all 
men  without  present  suffering,  but  will  not,  is  he  infinite  in 
goodness?  With  the  license  this  writer  takes,  Universalism 
may  be  swept  away  at  a  stroke.  We  have  seen  a  string  of  ques 
tions  upon  the  same  plan  with  Mr.  T.'s  tract,  by  a  crafty  athe 
ist,  concerning  the  being  of  God  and  Divine  revelation  ;  and  we 
should  think  Mr.  T.  had  taken  that  writer  as  his  beau  ideal.  It 
were  an  easy  matter  to  answer  the  whole  tract,  and  turn  its  force 
upon  his  own  theory,  if  space  would  admit.  It  presents  a  fine 
specimen  of  the  priestcraft  of  Universalism. 

XIX.  "Blessed  are  tlie  dead  ivhich  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
labors  ;  and  their  works  do  follow  them."  Rev.  14  :  13. 

Hero  a  class  among  the  dead  are  named  as  enjoying  exalted 
bliss.  They  are  such  as  'die  in  the  Lord.  But  Universalism 
asserts  that  all  are  equally  blest,  and  all  rest  from  their  labors, 
for  beyond  death  there  is  no  difference  between  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.  We  are  aware  that  some  of  its  advocates,  in 
order  to  pare  off  a  little  of  the  absurdity,  admit  a  difference  in 
degrees  of  happiness  growing  out  of  a  difference  in  capacity  for 
enjoyment ;  but,  nevertheless,  all  are  holy  and  happy,  for  death 
puts  an  end  to  sin  and  all  suffering.  By  the  way,  does  not  this 
idea  border  a  little  upon  Partialism  ?  Why  did  not  God  create 
and  place  m.en  in  circumstances  perfectly  equal  all  through  their 


50  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

whole  existence  ?  But  it  is  said  "  their  ivovks  do  follow  them." 
How  can  this  be,  if  the  present  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  fu 
ture  ?  This  text  stands  directly  opposed  to  American  Univer- 
salism. 

XX.  "  And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  hit 
after  this  the  judgment ;  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  of  many ;  and  unto  them  that  look  for  him  shall  he 
appear  the  second  time  without  sin,  unto  salvation."  Heb.  9  : 

27,  28. 

Since  the  no-future  punishment  notion  has  come  into  vogue, 
this  passage  has  become  exceedingly  troublesome  to  Universal- 
ists.  That  it  taught  a  future  judgment  was  never  called  in 
question  till  about  1818.  Since  that,  various  expedients  have 
been  resorted  to  in  order  to  destroy  its  force.  Mr.  Balfour,  in 
controversy  with  Mr.  Hudson,  says  of  it,  "  He  (Mr.  Hudson) 
will  then  ask  me,  what  judgment  comes  after  death  ?  I  answer, 
the  judgment  God  pronounced  on  all  mankind,  (Gen.  3:  19,) 
'dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.'  Here  is  a 
judgment  which  comes  after  death,  which  is  visible,  universal, 
certain,  and  disputed  by  no  man."  Essays,  p.  271.  So  when 
the  unconscious  body  turns  to  dust,  that  is  the  judgment  ! !  This 
needs  no  comment.  To  show  the  liberty  taken  with  the  Bible 
by  these  men  of  many  inventions,  we  give  the  following  upon 
this  passage,  found  in  a  sermon  by  "W.  A.  Stickney  : 

"  As  it  is  appointed  unto  men  (human  kind,)  once  to  partake 
of  flesh  and  blood,  whereby  the  soul  is  subject  to  spiritual  death, 
and  after  this  the  judgment  of  justification  by  a  spiritual,  im 
mortal  life,  when  the  earthly  tabernacle  to  which  the  spirit  was 
first  united  is  put  off  in  natural  death  ;  so  Christ  once  took  on 
him  flesh  and  blood,  and  when  his  body  was  thus  put  off,  was 
once  offered  to  bear  (away)  the  sins  of  the  many ;  that  is,  to 
make  known,  as  the  Mediator,  or  witness  of  the  new  covenant, 
the  way  in  which  full  deliverance  from  moral  death,  and  the 
power  of  sinful  influence,  is  to  be  obtained."  Trumpet, 
rvo.  723. 


Sec.   20.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  51 

This,  as  all  must  see,  is  a  theological  curiosity.  It  is  but  justice, 
however,  to  say  that  these  once  true  interpretations  have  become 
nearly  obsolete  in  the  order.  The  most  popular  method  to  get 
rid  of  the  troublesome  text  is  the  following  :  "  As  it  is  appointed 
unto  men  (the  high  priests),  once  to  die,  (in  their  sacrifices.) 
and  after  this  the  judgment,  (which  they  bore  upon  their  breast ;) 
so  Christ  was  once  offered  (that  is,  in  a  sacrificial  manner),  to 
bear  the  sins  of  many."  Guide,  p.  268. 

It  appears  that  the  credit  of  this  invention  belongs  to  Mr.  H. 
Ballou.  See  Section  CXXXIII. 

Our  business  now  is  to  expose  the  sophistry  of  this  stereotyped 
exposition,  so  often  put  forth  with  great  confidence,  by  Univer- 
salist  ministers,  both  great  and  small.  In  their  criticisms,  they 
tell  us  that  the  definite  article  should  be  placed  before  the  noun 
men,  so  as  to  read,  "As  it  is  appointed  unto  the  men  once  to 
die,"  &c.  To  this  we  do  not  object.  But  who  are  the  men 
appointed  to  die  ?  Not  the  Jewish  high  priest,  as  they  affirm, 
for, 

1.  They  were  never  appointed  to  die,  either  figuratively  or 
literally,  as  such.  We  call  upon  Universalists  to  show  us  such 
an  appointment  from  the  Scriptures.  They  often  refer  us  to  Ex. 
28  :  29,  30,  which  reads  thus  : 

"  And  Aaron  shall  bear  the  names  of  the  children  of  Israel 
in  the  breast-plate  of  judgment  upon  his  heart,  when  he  goeth 
in  unto  the  holy  place,  for  a  memorial  before  the  Lord  con 
tinually. 

"  And  thou  shalt  put  in  the  breast-plate  of  judgment  the  Urim 
and  the  Thummim  ;  and  they  shall  be  upon  Aaron's  heart,  when 
he  goeth  in  before  the  Lord :  and  Aaron  shall  bear  the  judg 
ment  of  the  children  of  Israel  upon  his  heart  before  the  Lord 
continually." 

Not  a  word  is  said  here,  or  elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  about  the 
appointment  of  high  priests  to  die  figuratively,  in  their  sacrifices ; 
and  it  is  an  unwarranted  assumption  to  say  that  they  were  so 
appointed,  or  that  they  so  died.  The  high  priest  typified  Christ's 


52  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

priesthood,  but  did  Christ  die  as  PRIEST  ?  Certainly  not.  lie 
died  as  sacrifice,  and  was  typified  in  this  respect,  not  by  the 
high  priest  but  by  the  sacrificial  lamb,  offered  by  the  high  priest. 
Hence  he  is  called  "  the  Lamb  of  God."  See,  also,  1  Peter, 
1  :  18,  19;  also  Hcb.  7  :  22,  25,  where  the  apostle  shows  that 
Christ,  as  priest,  "  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession"  for  his 
people. 

2.  The  high  priests  were  appointed  to  enter  "into  the  holy 
place  every  year,  with  the  blood  of  others."  Ver.  25.  But 
the  men  spoken  of  in  the  text  were  appointed  once  to  die.  It 
is  said,  "  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  so  Christ  was 
once  offered."  But  if  the  men  refer  to  the  Jewish  high  priests, 
and  the  death  to  their  sacrifices,  then  it  must  read  thus,  "As  it 
is  appointed  unto  the  high  priests  once  to  die  every  year  in  their 
sacrifices,  so  Christ  was  offered  once  every  year ,"  and  "then 
must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the  foundation  of  the  world," 
(vcr.  25,)  and  thus  is  the  apostle  contradicted  by  this  exposi 
tion.  But  who  are  the  men  appointed  once  to  die  ?  Ans.  The 
many,  (vcr.  28,)  for  whom  Christ  died.  "  Christ  was  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many."  The  adjective  "  many,"  is  here  put 
for  the  noun  "  men."  Many  men,  or  "  the  many''1  as  it  is  in 
the  original.  Now,  as  the  adjective  "  many  "  is  here  used  for, 
or  instead  of,  the  noun  "  men,"  all  that  is  necessary  to  express 
the  exact  sense,  is  to  use  the  noun  "men"  instead  of  the 
adjective  "many,"  i.  e.,  the  men  instead  of  the  many.  The 
sense  of  the  text,  then,  is  fully  expressed  thus  :  as  it  is  ap 
pointed  unto  the  men  once  to  die,  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to 
bear  the  sins  of  the  men.  Now  who  are  the  men  for  whom 
Christ  died?  Ans.  "This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  which  is  shed  for  many,  (or  the  many,  Gr.,)  for  the 
remission  of  sins."  Matt.  20:28.  "He,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  tasted  death  for  every  man."  Heb.  2  :  9.  Thus  we  see, 
that  the  many,  or  the  men,  for  whom  Christ  died  are  all  men, 
every  man. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  state  the  argument  thus : 


Sec.  20.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  53 

1.  The  men  appointed  to  die,  named  verse  27,  are  the  many 
for  whom  Christ  died,  named  verse  28.     As  it  is  appointed  unto 
the  men  once  to  die,  so  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins 
of  the  men — that  is,  the  men  appointed  to  die. 

2.  The  many,  named  verse  28,  for  whom   Christ  died,  were 
all  men,  "  every  man." 

3.  Therefore,  the  men  appointed  to  die    are  all   men,   and 
not  the  Jewish  high  priests,  to  die  figuratively,  as  Universalists 
assert. 

So  we  see  that  their  own  criticism,  "by  which  they  add  the 
definite  article  the  to  the  common  translation,  goes  to  destroy 
the  exposition  they  give  of  this  passage.  Here  we  state,  with 
out  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  the  expression  the  men 
is  never  used  in  the  Scriptures  to  designate  the  Jewish  high 
priests,  but  on  the  contrary,  they  are  called  high  priests,  to  dis- 
tinonish  them  from  the  men,  that  is,  the  generality  of  men. 
Heb.  5  :  1. 

This  exposition  contains  the  following  false  assertions  : 

1.  It  asserts  that  the  high  priests  were  appointed  to  die  in 
their  sacrifices,  i.  e.,  figuratively;  which  is  false.     It  is  mere 
assumption  without  a  shadow  of  proof  in  the  Bible. 

2.  It  makes  the  text  assert  this :  as  the  high  priests  died 
figuratively  in  their  sacrifices,  so  Christ  was  offered  figuratively 
in  his ;  for  it  says,  as  the  high  priests,  so  Christ,  thus  making 
the  death  of  Christ  figurative  instead  of  real ! 

3.  It  asserts  that  the  high  priests  were  appointed  once  to  die, 
or  offer  sacrifices;  that  is,  only  once.     This  contradicts  the  apos 
tle,  for  he  says,  ver.  25,  that  they  entered  "  into  the  holy  place 
every  year,  with  the  blood  of  others." 

4.  It  asserts  that  the  high  priests  died  figuratively  themselves, 
which  is  false,  and  again  contradicts  the  apostle ;  for  he   says, 
ver  25,  they  offered  "  the  blood  of  others." 

5.  It  makes  the  text  assert,  that,  as  it  is  appointed  unto  the 
men,  i.  e.,  the  high  priests,  once  to  die,  so  Christ  was  once  offered 
to  bear  the  sins  of  the  many,  or  the  men,  who  are  the  Jewish 


54  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

high  priests.     Thus  limiting  Christ's  atonement  to  the  Jewish 
high  priests  ! 

G.  It  asserts  that  the  phrase  the  men  is  used  to  designate  the 
Jewish  high  priests,  when  it  is  never  so  used  in  the  Bible. 

To  these  thoughts,  add  the  fact  that  this  Epistle  was  addressed 
to  those  who  had  been  educated  in  the  belief  of  a  future  judg 
ment  and  also,  that  among  all  the  expositors  of  Scripture,  for 
nearly  eighteen  hundred  years,  whose  writings  have  come  down 
to  us,  no  one  ever  discovered  this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  text : 
and  that  even  Mr.  Ballou,  who  it  seems  was  so  exceedingly 
anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  text,  never  made  his  discovery  until 
he  had  been  a  constant  student  of  the  science  of  divinity  for 
twenty-nine  years,  twenty-seven  of  which  he  was  a  Universalist 
preacher.  (Sec.  CXXXIII.)  Take  all  these  things  into  ac 
count,  we  say,  and  who  does  not  see  that  the  exposition  given  is 
unnatural,  absurd  and  false. 

The  passage  under  consideration  is  too  plain  to  need  any 
comments,  were  it  not  that  Universalists  have  so  distorted  its 
features.  It  will  be  seen,  by  the  context,  that  the  points  con 
nected  with  this  passage  are  the  two-fold  appearing  of  Christ, 
which  the  Apostle  was  laboring  to  establish.  Christ  had  once 
appeared  as  a  sin  offering,  "  to  put  away  sin."  He  is  to  appear 
a  "  second  time  without  sin,"  i.  e.,  without  a  sin  offering,  l'  unto 
salvation,"  to  those  who  look  for  him. 

The  substance  of  the  Apostle's  reasoning  may  be  stated  thus  : 
all  men  are  appointed  to  one  temporal  death,  and  only  one  ; 
therefore,  it  was  necessary  for  Christ  to  offer  himself  once,  and 
only  once,  to  redeem  them ;  and  as  all  men  are  accountable  for 
the  improvement  they  make  of  this  grace,  during  their  proba 
tion,  and  are  to  be  judged  after  death,  that  is,  after  their  pro 
bation  has  closed,  so  Christ  will  appear  a  second  time  to  judge 
them,  and  to  such  as  look  for  him,  (not  dll  men,)  or  believe  in 
him,  will  he  appear  unto  salvation.  Christ  came  at  the  end  of 
the  Jewish  dispensation  as  Redeemer.  He  will  come  at  the  end 
of  the  Gospel  dispensation  as  judge. 


Sec.  22.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  55 

The  Apostle  is  speaking,  doubtless,  of  the  same  event  in  this 
text  that  he  is  in  Chap.  6  :  2  of  the  same  Epistle,  where,  in  the 
order  of  his  arrangement,  in  giving  a  summary  of  Christian 
doctrines,  he  places  "  eternal  judgment"  after  the  "  resurrection 
of  the  dead." 

The  passage  teaches  just  what  it  seems  to  teach  to  an  unso 
phisticated  mind.  It  remains  a  truth,  then,  that  men  must  die, 
and  after  this  the  judgment. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  thoughts,  this  refutation  was 
furnished  by  Pvev.  Charles  Hunger. 

XXI.  "  After  this  I  beheld,  and  lo,  a  great  multitude, 
which  no  man  could  number,  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds, 
and  people,"  $c.  JKev.  7  :  9,  10. 

This  passage  has  been  pressed  into  the  service  of  Universal- 
ism.  Pro  and  Con,  p.  105.  But  does  it  say  one  word  about 
the  salvation  of  all  men  ?  Does  it  say,  "  I  beheld,  and  lo,  all 
men  stood  before  the  throne,  and  before  the  Lamb,  clothed  in 
white  robes,  and  palms  in  their  hands,"  crying,  Salvation  to  our 
God,  &c.  ?  Nothing  like  it.  A  particular  class  possessing 
peculiar  qualifications  is  spoken  of,  and  not  the  whole  race  of 
men.  When  it  is  shown  that  the  whole  of  Adam's  posterity 
will  come  up  before  the  throne,  having  their  robes  washed  and 
made  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  Universalists  will  have 
done  something  to  their  purpose.  What  do  Universalists  be 
lieve  concerning  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  save  in 
the  future  state  ?  Just  nothing.  (Sees.  XXIX  and  CY.) 

XXII.  "If  any  man  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new 
creature"  2  Cor.'5  :  17. 

The  author  of  the  Guide,  p.  48,  constructs  an  argument  to 
prove  his  theory  as  follows  :  "  Paul  saith,  as  in  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  1  Cor.  15:  22. 
"If  any  man  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  creature."  2 
Cor.  5:17.  Hence  if  all  shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ,  tbey  shall 


56  UNIVKHSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

nil  be  new  creatures  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  text 
in  2  Cor.  5  :  17,  refers  to  the  state  of  the  regenerated  man  in 
this  world,  and  not  to  the  resurrection,  as  may  be  seen  by  turn 
ing  to  the  passage.  The  text  from  1  Cor.  15  :  22,  refers  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  not  to  the  renewal  of  the  heart. 
These  scriptures  referring  to  different  subjects  altogether,  are 
brought  together  in  good  Univcrsalist  style,  and  are  made  to 
teach  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future  state.  What  cannot 
be  proved  in  this  way  ?  In  Gen.  4  :  8  we  read,  "  Cain  rose  up 
against  his  brother  Abel  and  slew  him."  In  Luke  10:  37  it 
is  said,  "  Gro,  and  do  thou  likewise."  Hence,  to  murder  a 
brother  as  Cain  did,  is  to  obey  the  scriptures  !  Is  not  one  argu 
ment  as  good  as  the  other  ?  Can  a  system  of  truth,  given  from 
heaven,  require  such  work  with  the  Bible  to  sustain  it?  Never. 
For  an  examination  of  1  Cor.  15  :  22,  sec  Sec  XC. 

XXXIII.  "  And  every  creature  which  is  in  heaven  and  on 
the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and,  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and 
all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying,  Uessing,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  power  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and 
unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever."  llev.  5  :  13. 

It  is  seldom  that  we  see  an  effort  to  prove  Univcrsalism  from 
the  scriptures  without  the  use  of  this  text.  But  does  it  prove 
the  doctrine  ?  Let  us  sec.  We  have  been  told  for  the  hun 
dredth  time  that  Prof.  Stuart  said,  in  controversy  with  Dr. 
Channirrg,  that  spiritual  worship  is  here  intended,  and  also  that 
here  we  have  an  instance  of  the  common  periphrasis  of  tho 
Hebrew  and  New  Testament  writers  for  the  universe,  and  the 
inference  drawn  by  Universalists  is,  that  if  all  the  universe  wor 
ship  the  Lamb  then  the  whole  human  race  will  be  saved.  That 
the  whole  universe  is  here  intended  is  doubtless  correct ;  but 
with  all  deference  to  Prof.  Stuart,  with  the  Bible  for  our  guide, 
we  must  dissent  from  his  opinion  that  spiritual  worship  is  in 
tended.  If  spiritual  worship  is  meant,  then  we  hive  the  whole 
imi\ <•!><•,  planets,  angels,  men,  beasts,  birds,  fishes,  creeping 


SeC.  23.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  57 

things,  in  a  word,  all  animate  and  inanimate  creation,  engaged  in 
it,  speaking  a  language  and  ascribing  blessing,  honor,  glory  and 
power  to  God  and  the  Lamb ;  and  to  carry  out  the  Universalist 
id!ea,  these  are  all  to  be  holy  and  happy  !  The  human  race  form 
but  a  small  part  of  the  universe.  Christ  sent  his  apostles  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  (Mark  16 :  15)  ;  but  the 
subject,  the  implied  ability  of  those  to  whom  it  was  sent,  to 
receive  or  reject  it,  shows  that  by  this  moral  agents  are  intended 
who  are  inhabitants  of  the  earth ;  but  in  the  case  before  us,  not 
only  is  every  creature  which  in  heaven,  earth,  under  the  earth 
and  in  the  sea,  but  also  all  that  are  in  them,  are  giving  these 
ascriptions.  But  should  Universalists  cease  to  quote  Prof. 
Stuart  and  change  their  ground,  as  they  sometimes  do,  and  take 
the  position  that  the  human  race,  and  not  the  whole  universe,  is 
intended,  then  they  gain  nothing.  Observe,  the  assumption  in 
the  argument  is,  that  the  revelator  had  a  view  of  all  men  saved 
in  the  future  state.  Now  if  human  beings  are  intended  by 
"every  creature"  and  their  so  called  spiritual  worship  is  evi 
dence  of  their  salvation,  a  difficulty  is  at  once  encountered  by 
the  fact  that  these  creatures,  or  human  beings,  doing  this  wor 
ship,  are  not  only  in  heaven  but  on  the  earth,  and  under  the 
earth,  and  in  the  sea  !  But  when  all  shall  be  saved  in  heaven, 
will  a  part  of  them  be  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  in 
the  sea  ?  Yet  to  such  a  conclusion  are  we  driven  by  such  pre 
mises.  The  truth  is,  this  figurative  passage,  from  the  most 
figurative  book  in  all  the  Bible,  was  never  designed  to  teach  the 
salvation  of  all,  of  even  any  men  in  the  future  world.  Its  sole 
design  is  to  give  a  luminous  description  of  the  glory  of  Him  that 
sitteth  upon  the  throne  and  of  the  Lamb  ;  hence  the  whole  uni 
verse  is  personified  and  represented  as  uniting  in  ascriptions  of 
praise  to  them.  The  Psalmist  calls  upon  all  animate  and  inani 
mate  creation  to  praise  God,  (Ps.  148,)  but  did  he  once  think 
that  this  was  equivalent  to  calling  all  the  race  of  Adam  to  be 
holy  and  happy  after  death  ?  Mr.  Hosea  Ballou,  2d,  rebukes 
his  brethren  for  their  gross  perversion  of  this  text  thus : 
5 


58  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"  Universalists  have  not  wholly  ceased  to  quote  as  proof  of  the 
final  reconciliation  of  all  men,  this  text,  Rev.  5  :  13,  a  text 
which,  if  we  mistake  not  their  views  concerning  the  general  plan 
of  this  book,  they  can  by  no  means  suppose,  on  careful  reflec 
tion,  to  refer  to  a  period  yet  future."  U.  Expositor,  v.  3.,  p. 
196.  Says  Mr.  Sawyer,  a  preacher  in  the  order,  "  It  has  been, 
and  may  well  be,  doubted  whether  any  part  of  the  Apocalypse 
relates  to  the  future  and  eternal  world."  Pen.  of  Sin,  p.  16. 
Yet  Universalist  preachers  continue  to  use  this  text  to  prove 
their  doctrine,  just  because  the  phrase  "every  creature"  is 
in  it. 

XXIV.  "  And  we  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ  the 
Saviour  of  the  world."  John  4  :  42,  also  1  John  4  :  14. 

It  is  inquired,  "  How  can  he  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
without  saving  it?"  U.  111.  and  Def.,  p.  268.  This  class  of 
writers  can  see  no  possible  way  in  which  Christ  can  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  unless  every  human  soul  is  saved.  Let 
us  help  them  a  little  upon  this  point.  All  are  not  saved  now 
nor  will  they  be,  if  Universalist  views  are  correct,  till  the  resur 
rection.  Now  observe,  the  text  under  consideration  was  spoken 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  he  was  declared  then  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  But  millions  have  remained  unsaved 
from  that  to  the  present,  and  if  Christ  has  been  the  Saviour  of 
the  world  for  eighteen  centuries  and  millions  remain  unsaved,  we 
ask  by  what  process  in  reasoning  will  it  be  made  to  appear  that 
some  may  not  remain  unsaved  forever,  and  yet  Christ  be  tho 
Saviour  of  the  world.  A  man  may  by  office  be  the  surgeon  of 
a  whole  regiment,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  must  perform  a 
surgical  operation  upon  every  one  in  the  regiment.  So  Christ 
is  the  given  or  appointed  Saviour  of  the  world,  but  the  effectual 
Saviour  of  those  only  who  obey  him.  Ileb.  5  :  9. 


Sec.  25.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  59 

XXV.  "  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness,  but 
the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death."  Prov.  14:  32,  also 
Prov.  11 :  7. 

The  twist  given  to  this  text  to  destroy  its  force  is  this  :  "  In 
character,  he  (the  wicked)  is  far  away  from  Christ  and  God. 
He  does  not  enjoy  their  companionship.  He  is  in  a  peculiar 
sense  without  Christ  and  without  God/''  Banner,  March  23, 
1850.  So  it  does  not  refer  to  the  dying  hour  but  to  the  prac 
tice  of  wickedness  in  this  life.  He  is  driven  away  from  Christ 
and  God  here.  To  be  driven  implies  involuntary  action,  that  is, 
force.  But  is  not  a  departure  from  God,  or  sin,  a  voluntary 
act  ?  Most  surely,  or  it  is  not  sin.  And  then  who  drives  the 
wicked  away  from  Christ  and  God  in  this  world  ?  The  idea  is 
repugnant  to  the  whole  gospel  plan,  which  instead  of  driving  the 
sinner  from  Christ  and  God,  invites  and  welcomes  him  to  them. 
Every  unsophisticated  mind  will  see  that  in  this  text  the  condi 
tion  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  death  is  contrasted. 
"  The  wicked  is  driven  away,"  he  goes  reluctantly  into  the 
future  world,  is  unwilling  to  die.  He  "is  driven  away  in" 
not  out  of  or  from  his  wickedness,  but  carries  the  same  moral 
character  into  eternity  he  bore  when  death  found  him.  Of  sim 
ilar  import  is  Prov.  11:8.  "  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his 
expectation  shall  perish ;  and  the  hope  of  unjust  men  perisheth." 
Now  we  ask,  Universalism  being  true,  what  more  the  righteous 
man  may  hope  for  in  death  than  the  wicked  man  ?  Does  the 
righteous  man  hope  for  heavenly  bliss  ?  May  not  the  wicked 
do  the  same  ?  Does  he  hope  to  escape  the  ills  of  this  life  ? 
May  not  wicked  men  hope  the  same  ?  Universalism  says  to  all 
men,  without  respect  to  character,  "you  may  hope  in  your 
death."  But  the  Bible  restricts  it  to  the  righteous  only.  The 
Bible  nowhere  says  the  wicked  hath  hope  in  his  death.  But 
this  dogma  says  to  the  desperately  wicked,  "  You  may  hope  for 
a  greater  deliverance  by  death  than  the  righteous,  inasmuch  as 
you  are  more  wretched  here  and  will  fare  just  as  well  here 
after  !  "  Which  shall  we  follow,  Universalism  or  the  Bible  ? 


60  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

XX VI.  "  You  that  are  troubled  rest  with  us"  &c.  2 
Thess.  1  :  7-10,  also  1  Thess.  4  :  15-17. 

Universalist  truth  upon  this  passage  used  to  be  promulgated 
by  Father  Ballou  as  follows  :  "  This  fire  is  that  in  which  Christ 
is  revealed,  and  it  comes  from  heaven.  Is  not  this  the  fire  with 
which  he  baptizes  ?  Is  not  the  fire  revealed  to  destroy  the  hay, 
the  wood,  and  the  stubble  ?  Undoubtedly  ;  and  is  the  endless 
misery  of  the  sinner  to  be  proved  from  the  action  of  that  divine 
fire  which  alone  is  able  to  affect  his  salvation  ?  But  the  objector 
says,  the  text  reads  for  itself,  '  Who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destructions/Torn  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from 
the  glory  of  his  power ; '  and  if  the  sinner  is  punished  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  he  cannot  be  blessed  in  it,  where  there  are 
joys  forever  more.  Answer  :  There  is  not  a  place  in  the  universe 
which  is  out  of  the  presence  of  an  omnipresent  God  ;  therefore 
to  put  a  sinner  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  he  must  be  put 
out  of  the  universe.  But  what  means  the  text?  says  the  reader. 
Answer  :  That  divine  light  and  heat,  which  destroys  moral  dark 
ness,  and  purges  man  from  all  sin,  is  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  as  a  production  of  the  divine  presence  ;  as  it  is  written  con 
cerning  the  man  of  sin,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the 
breath  of  his  mouth,  and  destroy  with  the  brightness  of  his 
coming.  If  God  were  not  able  to  punish  the  sinner  in  the  man 
ner  described  in  the  text,  I  should  despair  of  his  salvation  ;  but 
blessed  be  that  divine  spirit  of  light  and  love  ;  it  truly  takes 
such  vengeance  on  the  sinner  as  is  worthy  of  a  God."  T.  on 
Atonement,  p.  183.  , 

This  positive  truth  has  long  since  become  obsolete,  and  now 
this  class  of  writers,  to  which  Mr.  B.  belongs,  are  just  as  posi 
tive  that  this  passage  had  its  fulfilment  in  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  polity  by  the  Romans,  as  they  once  were  that,  " punished 
with  everlasting  destruction"  "  flaming  fire"  and  "  taking 
vengeance "  meant,  that  divine  light  and  heat  which  destroys 
moral  darkness,  and  purges  man  from  all  sin  ! ! 


SeC.  26.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  61 

In  order  to  give  plausibility  to  his  interpretation,  the  author 
of  the  Guide  remarks  as  follows:  "Who  were  those  that 
troubled  the  Thessalonians ?  Answer:  The  Jews.  See  Acts 
17  :  5-7.  See  also  1  Thess.  2:  15,  where  Paul,  speaking  of 
the  Jews  who  had  persecuted  the  Thessalonians,  says :  '  Who 
both  killed  the  Lord  Jesus  and  their  own  prophets,  and  have 
persecuted  us.'  "  Here  a  falsehood  is  presented  by  withholding 
a  part  of  the  truth.  We  turn  to  1  Thess.  2  :  14,  15,  and  read 
as  follows  :  ' '  For  ye  brethren  became  followers  of  the  churches 
of  God  which  in  Judea  are  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  ye  also  have 
suffered  like  things  of  your  own  countrymen,  even  as  they  have 
of  the  Jews  :  who  both  killed  the  Lord  Jesus  and  their  own 
prophets  and  have  persecuted  us."  By  this  we  learn  that  their 
"  own  countrymen"  persecuted  the  Thessalonians  as  well  as  the 
Jews  named,  Acts  17  :  5-7.  Did  Mr.  Whittemore  know  no 
better  than  to  present  the  subject  in  this  light,  or  did  he  do  it  to 
deceive  ?  Judge  ye.  The  Greeks  then  as  well  as  the  Jews 
troubled  them. 

"  When  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  le  revealed  from  heaven  with 
his  mighty  angels"  &c.  This  we  are  told  was  fulfilled  when 
the  Roman  army  destroyed  Jerusalem.  In  reply  we  say,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  history  of  that  event  which  corresponds  with 
the  description  given  by  the  apostle.  How  was  Christ  "  revealed 
from  heaven,"  the  place  to  which  he  ascended  after  his  resur 
rection  ?  What  is  there  connected  with  the  Jerusalem  catas 
trophe  to  answer  to  this  ?  The  Roman  armies  we  are  told  were 
the  angels  that  accompanied  him.  And  were  those  fierce  pol 
luted  heathens  the  holy  (Matt.  25  :  31)  angels  of  the  immacu 
late  Jesus  ?  Did  they  come  from  heaven  with  him  ? 

"  Taking  vengeance,  on  them  that  know  not  God  and  obey 
not  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Were  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem  the  only  people  who  knew  not  God  ?  The  scriptures 
represent  the  Jews  as  distinguished  from  all  other  nations  by 
their  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  and  Paul  in  writing  to  this 
same  church  and  giving  them  directions  how  to  walk,  says : 


62  UNIVEESALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"  Not  in  lust  of  concupiscence  as  the  Gentiles  which  know  not 
God."  1  Thess.  4  :  5.  The  Gentiles,  then,  "  know  not  God," 
which  precludes  the  idea  that  the  Apostle  had  exclusive  refer 
ence  to  the  Jews.  This  being  the  case  he  could  not  be  teaching 
Jerusalem's  destruction,  for  that  was  a  punishment  upon  the 
Jews  and  not  the  Gentiles.  At  his  coming,  Christ  is  to  take 
vengeance  on  them  who  "obey  not  the  Gospel"  Were  the 
Jews  at  Jerusalem  the  only  people  who  disobeyed  the  gospel  ? 
Admitting  that  they  were,  it  does  not  follow  that  this  was  spoken 
of  Jerusalem's  overthrow,  for  observe,  this  Epistle  was  written 
sixteen  years  before  that  event,  and  vast  numbers  of  those  in 
Judea  who  were  living  in  disobedience  to  the  gospel  when  Paul 
wrote,  were  dead  long  before  the  city  was  destroyed  ;  and  so  far 
were  they  from  suffering  vengeance,  that  at  that  time  they  were 
enjoying  heavenly  bliss  —  i.  e.,  if  Universaliam  be  true.  But 
Gentiles  disobeyed  the  gospel  as  well  as  Jews,  and  persecut 
ed  Christians  as  we  have  seen.  See  also  Acts,  chapters  16  and 
19.  Now  as  vengeance  was  taken  upon  the  Jews  only  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  follows  that  the  Apostle  does  not 
refer  to  that  event. 

"  Who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  the  glory  of  his  power ." 

"  God  permitted  them  (the  Jews)  to  be  driven  away  from 
their  own  land  by  the  Romans  under  Titus."  Guide,  p.  192. 
This  we  are  informed  is  the  everlasting  destruction  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord.  Upon  this  we  submit  the  following  : 

1 .  History  informs  us  that  at  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus, 
one  million  one  hundred  thousand  of  the  Jews  perished  in  that 
city,  and  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  elsewhere.  These, 
then,  instead  of  going  "from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,3'*  were 
brought  immediately  into  his  heavenly  blissful  presence  —  that  is, 
if  Universalism  is  true  !  The  reader  can  see  the  sense  attached 
to  the  expression,  "presence  of  the  Lord,"  by  the  New  Testa 
ment  writers,  and  by  Paul  in  particular,  by  turning  to  Heb. 
9  : 24 ;  2  Cor.  5:8;  also  Jude  24. 


SeC.  26.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  63 

2.  As  to  the  Jews  being  driven  away  from  their  place  of 
worship,  it  is  not  in  point  at  all.  Of  whom  was  the  Apostle 
speaking?  Not  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation  or  a  class,  as  has  been 
shown,  but  of  a  class  of  wicked  persons  who  "  know  not  God 
and  obey  not  the  gospel;  "  including  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 
Were  Gentiles  driven  away  from  their  place  of  worship  and 
religious  privileges  at  the  time  of  Jerusalem's  destruction? 
The  Jews  are  nut  mentioned  in  the  whole  epistle.  No  more 
need  be  said. 

"  Rest  with  ?«." 

We  are  told  that  after  the  Jewish  power  was  broken  by  the 
Romans,  that  Christians  in  all  parts  of  the  world  had  a  glorious 
season  of  rest  from  persecution,  and  that  this  is  the  rest  that 
Paul  refers  to  here.  But  we  look  in  vain  to  the  history  of  that 
period  for  any  such  days  of  tranquility  to  the  church  as  these 
writers  assert.  The  Saviour,  in  Matt.  24  :  9-1 G,  which  Uni- 
versalists  apply  to  Jerusalem's  destruction,  represents  that  event 
as  a  time  of  great  temporal  calamity  to  Christians ;  and  history 
informs  us  that  ''for  two  hundred  and  sixty  years  from  the 
death  of  Christ,  they  had  but  short  intervals  of  rest  from  perse 
cution;  for  when  the  emperors  themselves  were  not  sanguinary, 
there  were  always  inferior  magistrates,  who,  under  some  pre 
tence  or  other,  hirrassed  the  poor,  inoffensive  Christians.  It  is 
supposed  that  three  millions  perished  in  three  centuries."  Rel. 
Enc.,  Art.  Persecution.  Was  this  the  glorious  rest  that  the 
faithful  were  promised?  It  is  a  "  rest  with  us."  It  is  not  true 
that  Christians  at  Thessalonica  were  to  rest  with  Paul  and  others 
as  a  result  of  Jerusalem's  destruction ;  for  Paul  suffered  death 
under  Nero  at  least  four  years  before  Titus  sacked  that  city,  and 
many  others  to  whom  and  of  whom  he  wrote  were  dead  before 
that  event.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  Universalists,  in  order 
to  fritter  away  the  true  sense  of  our  Saviour's  words,  Matt. 
10  :  28,  (Sec.  XCII.)  contend  that  he  is  there  giving  instruction 
concerning  the  Jews  and  the  Roman  power ;  that  the  disciples 
need  not  much  fear  the  Jews,  as  they  were  quite  harmless, 


64  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

having  not  legal  power  to  take  life,  but  that  they  were  to  fear 
the  Roman  power.  But  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  passage  under 
consideration,  they  will  have  it  that  the  Jews  are  the  terrible 
ones,  and  that  when  their  power  should  be  broken,  Christians 
should  enjoy  great  rest  and  peace  under  the  Roman  power  ! 
In  the  one  case  the  Romans  are  the  lion  and  the  Jews  the  lamb, 
and  in  the  other  the  Jews  are  the  lion  and  the  Romans  the 
lamb.  Any  way  to  push  forward  Universalism.  Of  this  reve 
lation  of  Christ  we  read  as  follows  :  "  Now  we  beseech  you, 
brethren,  by  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  our 
gathering  together  unto  him."  Chap.  2,  ver.  1. 

Those  to  whom  this  was  addressed  were  one  thousand  miles 
from  Jerusalem,  and  there  is  no  evidense  whatever  that  these  or 
any  other  Christians  were  gathered  at  that  city  at  that  time  ; 
but  instead  of  gathering,  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  Christians 
fled  from  Jerusalem  "  at  the  signs  of  approaching  danger." 
Paul  and  others  instead  of  being  gathered  at  Jerusalem's 
destruction,  were  resting  in  the  bosom  of  their  God,  having 
been  put  to  death  by  that  Roman  power  of  which  we  hear  so 
many  fine  things.  Before  Christ's  coming,  there  was  to  be  a 
great  apostacy  in  religion.  Paul  cautions  his  brethren  not  to 
think  that  the  day  of  recompense,  of  which  he  had  been  speaking, 
was  near  at  hand  ;  for,  says  he,  "  that  day  (the  day  when  the 
Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  in  naming  fire,  taking 
vengeance  on  them  who  know  not  God),  shall  not  come  except 
there  be  a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed, 
the  son  of  perdition,  who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  against 
all  that  is  called  God."  Chap.  2  :  4,  5.  Observe,  the  coming 
of  Christ  spoken  of  in  this  epistle  was  to  be  subsequent  to  the 
fulfillment  of  this  prediction.  Ver.  1  and  8.  Now  we  have 
no  account  whatever  of  an  apostacy  in  the  Christian  church, 
prior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  in  the  least  answers 
to  this  description.  Furthermore,  it  would  seem,  that  if  the 
assumptions  and  abominations  of  popery  are  predicted  anywhere 
in  the  Bible,  they  are  here,  which  is  an  additional  evidence 


SeC.  26.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  65 

against  Universalist  views,  showing  that  the  coming  of  Christ  is 
yet  future.  Having  exploded  the  absurdity  of  applying  this 
passage  to  the  destruction  of  the  city  of  David,  we  now  proceed 
to  show  that  it  does  teach  the  final  and  personal  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  raise  the  dead  and  to  judge  the  world. 
This  will  be  seen, 

1.  Because  the   circurnstance.s  mentioned  in  the  text  meet 
not  in  any  other  coming  of  Christ.     The  reader  has  already 
seen  the  disposition  once  made  of  it  by  Mr.  Ballou,  and  also  the 
interpretation  of  more  modern  times,  and  that  the  latter  is  as 
truthful  as  the  former,  and  no  more  so. 

2.  Because  it  is  evident  that  the  same   advent  of  Christ  is 
spoken  of  here  that  is  spoken  of  1  Thess.  4  :  15-17.     "  For 
this  we  say  unto  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  which 
are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  pre 
vent  them  which  are  asleep.     For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend 
from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and 
with  the  trumpet  of  God  ;  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first. 
Then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together 
in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and  so  shall  we  be 
ever  with  the  Lord."     It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  show  that 
if  the  coming  of  Christ  here  named  refers  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  then  his  coming  named  in  1  Cor.  15,  refers  to  the 
same  event ;  and  then  truly  the   resurrection  would  be  "past 
already,"   which  would  overthrow  the  faith  of   Universalists. 
We  could  easily  prove  that  they  both  refer  to  the  same  event, 
but  are  saved  the  trouble  by  an  admission  of  Mr.  Wbittemore. 
"  Now  when  shall  he  (Christ)  visit  the  earth  bodily  ?     Answer  : 
At  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     See  Acts  1  :  10,  11,  and  1 
Thess  4  :  16."      Guide,  p.  36.     The  author  of  the  Guide  is 
right  for  once.     He  adduces  the   16th  verse  of  1  Thess.,  4th 
chapter,  to  prove  that  Christ  will  visit  the  earth  bodily  at   the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  which  of  course  is  taught  in  1  Cor.  15, 
as  no  Universalist  will  deny.     These  events  have  never  taken 
place.     It  would  be  fatal  to  the  Universalist  theory  to  admit 

5* 


66  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

that  they  have.     The  bodily  and  personal  coming,  then,  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  is  yet  future.     The   question  now  comes  up,  is 
Apostle  treating  upon  the  same  advent,  of  Christ  in  2  Thess. 
1  :  7-10   that  he  is  in  1  Thess.  4  :  15-17  ?     We   answer,  he 

most  certainly  is,  for 

1    The  Epistles  were  hoth  written  by  the  same  Apostle  to  the 
same  church,  and  as  in  the  first  letter  he   speaks  of   Christ's 
coming  to  raise  the  dead,  we  safely  conclude  that  the  passage  m 
the  second  letter  relates  to  the  same  event,  unless  there  is  SOT 
thino-  in  it  to  teach  us  a  different  application. 

2°  Instead  of  a  different  application  being  suggested,   t 
are  striking  points  of  resemblance,  too  striking  to  admit  of  a 
doubt  but  they  both  relate  to  the  same  advent  of  Christ. 

1  One    says,    "  the    Lord   Jesus   shall   be   revealed  from 
heaven;"  the  other  declares,  "  the  Lord  himself   shall  descend 

from  heaven."  .      . 

2  One  says,  he  "shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  n 
mighty  angels  :"  the  other,  that  he  shall  descend  "with  t1 
voice  of  the  archangel." 

3.  One  declares  that  he  shall  recompense  rest  to  them  that 
ore  troubled  "  when  he  shall- come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints  ;  " 
the  other  says  that  the  saints  shall  be  caught  up  "to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air  ;  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord." 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  these  both  relate  to  the 
same  great  event.  In  the  first  Epistle  the  Apostle  speaks  more 
particularly  of  the  righteous.  In  the  second,  both  of  the  wicked 
and  the  righteous.  In  the  first  he  asserts  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead ;  in  the  second,  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  These 
facts  teach  us  most  conclusively  that  some  men  will  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  and 
the  glory  of  his  power  after  they  are  raised  from  the  dead.  See 
Sec.  XLI,  where  these  passages  are  collated  with  Matt.  25  :  31 
and  1  Cor.  15. 


Sec.  27.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OP    THE   BIBLE.  67 

XXVII.  "  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  on",  may  receive  the  things  DONE  in 
HIS  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  IT  BE  good 
or  bad.  Knowing  therefore  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  we  per 
suade  men."  2  Cor.  5  :  10,  11. 

This,  too,  refers  to  the  judgment  that  came  upon  the  Jewish 
nation  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  !  Balfour's  Essays,  p. 
300  ;  Guide,  p.  187.  The  words  in  small  capitals  are  supplied 
by  the  translators  with  which  Mr.  Whittemore  is  somewhat  dis 
pleased,  and  will  have  it  that  the  translators  were  under  the 
influence  of  "  long-nurtured  prejudices."  Were  we  to  look  no 
farther  than  Mr.  W.'s  Guide,  we  should  conclude  that  this  text 
stood  perfectly  independent  of  what  preceded  it,  for  he  has  very 
wisely,  for  his  own  cause,  said  nothing  about  the  preceding 
verses.  By  turning  to  the  chapter,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  trans 
lators  had  the  strongest  of  reasons  from  the  context  for  adding 
the  supplied  words.  The  Apostle's  theme  is  the  separation  of 
the  soul  from  the  body  by  death,  and  he  very  naturally  cites 
his  brethren  to  the  event  which  should  take  place  subsequent  to 
this  separation  when  the  bodies  of  men  should  be  raised  and  all 
should  be  judged.  Without  the  supplied  words  it  reads  thus  : 
"  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ; 
that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  in  body,  according  to  that 
he  hath  done,  whether  good  or  bad."  Now  what  is  gained  to 
Universalism  by  discarding  the  supplied  words  ?  Does  it  now 
say  that  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ 
at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  Does  it  now  teach  that  all 
are  rewarded  and  punished  in  this  world  ?  Will  there  not  be  a 
body  of  some  kind  after  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ?  and  if  so, 
may  not  men  receive  for  their  works  "  in  body  "  in  a  future  life  ? 
To  say  that  the  Apostle  is  calling  the  attention  of  his  Corinthian 
brethren  to  the  judgment  to  come  upon  the  Jewish  nation,  is 
most  false  and  absurd. 

1.  This  Epistle  was  addressed  to  Christians,  chiefly  Gentiles. 
Home. 


68 


UN1VEKSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part   I. 


2.  Corinth  was  nine  hundred  miles  from  Jerusalem. 

3.  This  Epistle  was  written  at  least  twelve  years  before  Jeru 
salem  was  destroyed. 

4.  Universalists  have  repeatedly  told  us  that  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  was  a  judgment  upon  the  Jewish  nation  for  reject 
ing  the  Messiah,  and   of  course  was  not  a  judgment  on  the 
Gentiles.     It  comes  to  this  then  :  the  Apostle  sits  down,  twelve 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  writes  to  a  Church 
composed  chiefly  of  Gentiles,  nine  hundred  miles  from  Jerusa 
lem,  as  follows  :  For  we  (Paul,  the  Christians  at  Corinth,  and 
others),  must  all  appear  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
the  Romans,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things  in  body 
according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  good   or  bad  !     Did 
"every  one  "   of  the  church  at  Corinth,  mostly  Gentiles,  and 
nine  hundred  miles  distant,  appear  at  Jerusalem  and  there  receive 
in  body  according  to  that  they  had  done  ?     Many  of  their  bodies 
were  mouldering  in  the  dust  long  before  that  event.     Was  Paul 
there   (he  says,   "  we  must  all,"  &c.),  to  receive  in  his  body  ? 
He   died  under  Nero  four  years  before.     Again,  if  we  may- 
credit  the  authors  Universalists  quote,  no   Christian  appeared 
before  Jerusalem's  destruction,  but  fled  from   the  place  at  the 
"signs  of  the  approaching  danger."     Notes  on  Par.  p.  352. 
Mr.  Whittemore  usually  manifests  a  remarkable  confidence  in 
the  gullibility  of  his  readers,  but  here  he  falters  somewhat ;  as  if 
he  feared  confining  this  to  Jerusalem's  destruction  would  be 
too  large  a  dose  even  for  his  patrons,  he  adds,   "  at  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  there  was  a  general  judgment  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth."     Guide,  p.  187.     This  is  thrown  in 
so  that  the  judgment  may  extend  off  nine  hundred  miles  to 
Corinth ;  but  this  helps  riot  the  matter  at  all,  for  how  could 
those  long  since   dead,  like  Paul,  stand  before  that  judgment 
seat  ^    But  where  does  Mr.  W.  find  his  authority  for  this  bold 
assertion  ?     He  gives  none,  for  the  reason   that  he  has  none. 
This  was  doubtless  manufactured  by  some  one  in  the  Trumpet 
office,   Boston.      History  says  nothing  about  such  a  general 


SeC.  29.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  69 

judgment  among  the  nations.  That  the  Apostle  teaches  a  judg 
ment  in  a  future  state  is  evident  from  the  language,  the  context, 
and  the  absurdity  of  any  other  construction. 

XXVIII.  "  All  the  ends  of  the  earth  shall  remember  and 
turn  unto  the  Lord,  and  all  the  kindred  of  the  natians  shall 
worship  before  thee."  Ps.  22  :  27. 

"  That  all  mankind- will  at  last  believe  the  gospel,  the  Bible 
does  explicitly  declare/'    Guide,  p.  269  ;  and  then  this  text  is 
quoted  as  proof.     Now  this  has  no  more  reference  to  the  salva 
tion  of  all  men  in  the  future  world,  than  it  has  to  the  brimstone 
which  fell  upon  the  Sodomites.     This  remembering  and  turning 
unto  the   Lord  must  take  place  either  in  this  world  or  the  next. 
None  will  assert  that  universal  salvation  takes  place  in  this  world. 
It  follows,  then,  that  forgetfulncss  of  God,  and  alienation  from 
him,  together  with  unbelief  of  the  gospel,  will  exist  in  the  future 
state  ;  and  as  these  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  sins 
against  God,  it  also  follows  that  sin  will  exist  in  the  future 
state,  and  consequently  misery.     How  does  this  comport  with* 
the  notion  that  death  puts  an  end  to  sin  and  its  consequences  ? 
How  does  it  comport  with  the  idea  that  all  are  to  be  ushered 
into  bliss  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  as  some  con 
tend  ?      This   text    indicates   the    progress   and    triumphs   of 
Christianity  in  this  world,  and  is  perverted  just  because  some 
men  arc  willing  to  be  deceived  by  a  jingle  of  sounds.     The  word 
all  is  in  the  passage,  hence  it  must  mean  universal  salvation  ! 

XXIX.  "  Wherefore  as  ~by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  ly  sin,"  &c.  Rom.  5  :  12,  17-21.  The 
reader  will  please  turn  to  the  passage. 

As  a  portion  of  this  passage  is  sometimes  pressed  into  the  ser 
vice  of  Universalism,  we  shall  examine  it  in  reference  to  some  of 
the  prominent  doctrines  of  the  order,  and  see  if  they  gain  any 
support  from  it.  The  apostle  says,  v.  12,  that  sin  and  death 
entered  the  world  by  one  man,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 


70 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 


men,  &e.;  and  in  v.  15,  «  For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many 
be  dead,"   &c.       Again,  v.  17,    "For  by  one  man's  offence 
death  reigned  by  one."     By  the  «•  one  man,"   Adam  is  meant, 
v.  14.     Well,  what  death  do   Univcrsalists  admit  that  Adam 
died,  of  which  mention  is  here  made  ?     Do  they  admit  that  it 
was  the  death  of  the  body  ?     No  :   for  they  tell  us  that  man  was 
created  mortal  at  first.     Do  they  admit  that  it  was  eternal  death 
or  a  death  involving  future  and  endless  punishment?     No  :  for 
they  deny  that  Adam  or  any  of  his  posterity  were  ever  exposed 
to  such  a  death  ;  for  if  it  were  once  admitted   that  all    or  any 
men  were  thus  exposed,  then  all  their  arguments  against  such 
punishment  from  the  attributes  of  God  are  destroyed  at  a  blow  ; 
for  if  endless  punishment  was  ever  consistent  with   the  attribute 
of  God,  it  may  be  so  to  all  eternity,  as  Universalists  well  know. 
But  what  death  is  meant  ?     It  is  a  moral  death.     Adam  died  to 
innocence  the  day  he  partook  of  the  forbidden  fruit       U.  Ill  & 
Def.,  p.  76. 

Did  this  moral  death  extend  beyond  this  present  life  ?  We 
hear  Mr.  Whittemore  more  than  twenty  years  ago  asserting  that 
"Universalists  now  know  of  no  condition  for  man,  beyond  the 
grave,  but  that  in  which  he  is  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven  " 
Trumpet,  April  2,  1831.  And  who  has  not  heard  their  per 
version  of  Rom.  G  :  7  :  "He  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin,"  to 
prove  that  the  most  God-dishonoring,  polluted  rake  in  creation  is 
freed  from  sin  and  all  its  consequences  as  soon  as  death  does  its 
work. 

At  this  point  let  us  inquire,  do  Universalists  admit  that  Christ 
came  into  this  world  to  save  us  in  another?  To  answer  this 
question,  we  will  introduce  Mr.  Ballou,  the  father  of  modern 
Universalism,  and  Mr.  Whittemore,  his  right  hand  supporter. 
These  men  have  done  more  by  way  of  originating  and  prepar 
ing  Universalist  doctrines  than  any  other  two  men  in  the  nation 
Mr.  Ballou  says,  "  that  Christ  came  into  this  world  to  save  us 
m  another,  is  contrary  to  all  the  representations  found  in  the 
scriptures."  Lee.  p.  U.  Mr.  Whittemore  says,  «•  The  truth 


SCC.   29.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  71 

is,  we  do  not  read  one  word  in  the  Bible  about  saving  men  from 
punishment  in  the  future  state."     The  evils  from  which  Jesus 
came  to  save  men  are  in  this  world,  and  for  this  reason  he  came 
into  this  world  to  save  them."      Guide,  p.  254.     Now  accord 
ing  to  these  teachers,  all  the  blessings  named  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  as  a  result  of  Christ's  death  and  obedience, 
are  confined  to  this  world ;    so  we  are  at  liberty  to  paraphrase 
v.  18,  as  follows:  "Therefore  by  the  offence  of  Adam,  judg 
ment  came  upon  all  men  to  moral  death  in  this  world,  even  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 
moral  life  in  this  world !  "     This,  as  all  must  see,  is  a  legitimate 
conclusion  from  the  premises,   and  all  that  Univcrsalisin  can 
derive  from  the  text  and  its  connection  is,  that  all  men  shall  bo 
made  morally  alive  in  this  world,  which  is  just  nothing  ;    for 
neither  moral  life  or  death  can  fix  the  future  condition  of  man, 
according  to  this  dogma ;  and,  furthermore,  such  a  conclusion  is 
contrary  to  matter  of  fact.     Is  it  said  that  the  blessings  gained 
by  Christ  are  more  extensive  than  those  lost  by  Adam  ?     No 
matter  how  extensive  the  blessings,  they  are  all  confined  to  this 
world,  inasmuch  as  they  are  by  Christ,  (v.  15,  IT,  21 ;)   and  he 
came,  as  Universalist  guides  assert,  not  to  save  men  in  the  future 
world,  but  in  this.     As  it  respects  the  reign  of  grace  "  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  v.  21, 
that,  according  to  Mr.  Whittemore  and  others,  cannot  refer  to 
the  future  state,  for  "  This  phrase  (eternal  life)  is  not  used  by 
the   sacred  writers  to  signify  endless  blessedness  beyond  the 
grave,  but  that  state  of  spiritual  life  and  peace  which  was  the 
immediate  effect  of  faith  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."    Guide, 
p.  140.     Now  if  this  phrase  is  not  used  by  the  sacred  writers  to 
signify  bliss  beyond  the  grave,  of  course  it  is  not  so  used  here, 
and  accordingly  the  use  of  the  phrase  in  v.  21,  confines  the 
blessings  named  to  this  life.     Universal  salvation  is  the  holiness 
and  happiness  of  all  our  race,  not  in  this  life,  but  in  the  future  ; 
so  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  these  men,  by  their  own  interpre 
tations,  deprive  themselves  of  the  right  to  bring  any  of  the  last 


72  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

?leven  verses  of  this  chapter  to  prove  their  doctrine.  But  as 
inconsistent  as  it  is,  as  there  is  universal  language  employed,  wo 
find  them  weaving  in  a  text  now  and  then  from  this  passage',  to 
give  plausibility  to  their  arguments. 

^  The  design  of  the  apostle   is,  to  compare  Adam's  sin  and 
Christ's  obedience,  in  respect  to  their  virtue  and  efficacy,  and  to 
show  that  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  obedience  must  needs  be  much 
more  abundant  than  that  of  Adam's  sin.     He  says,  v.  18  and 
19,   »  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one, 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.     For  as 
by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the 
obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."     By  this  we 
learn  that  all  men  were  passively  condemned,  in  some  sense, 
(not  to  endless  misery,)  by  Adam's  offence  ;  EVEN  SO,  mark 
that,  the  free  gift  came  positively  upon  all  men  to  justification  of 
ife,  or  freedom  from  condemnation  here,  (not  in  heaven.)     Thus 
as  far  as  man  was  made  a  sinner  in  Adam,  he  is  made  righteous 
m  Christ,  and  no  farther.     And  as  nothing  which  Adam  did 
condemned  the  sinner  to  misery  in  the  future  state,  independent 
of  his  own  acts,  so  nothing  that  Christ  has  done  can  make  him 
holy  and  happy  without  obedience  to  God  ;    for  he  has  become 
"  the   author  of  eternal  salvation,"    not  to   all  our  race    but 
"UNTO  ALL  THEM  THAT  OBEY  HIM"  Heb.  5:  9 
Thus  we  see  that  through  the  benevolence  of  God,  in  the  gift  of 
Son,  all  men  are  now  saved  from  the  condemnation  of  Adam's 
offence ;  and  all  moral  agents  may,  by  obedience  to  Christ   be 
saved  eternally.     But  it  is  inquired,  if  any  are  doomed  to  end- 
is  punishment  for  their  sins,  how  can  it  be  reconciled  with  v. 
20,  where  it  is  declared  that  «  where   sin  abounded  grace  did 
much  more  abound  ?  '•     Mr.  Isaac,  p.  68,  answered  this  in  his 
d  it  is  as  forcible  now  as  then.     He  says,  "  Mr.  Wright 
s  mistaken  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  sin  in  this  passage. 
He  supposes  it  means  all  the  sins  of  all  men,  in  all  ages.     But 
this  were  its  meaning,  the  apostle's  assertion  in  the  next  verses 


Sec.  29.]  UNIVEESALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  73 

(chap.  0:1,2)  would  not  be  true  ;  for  if  we  continued  in  sin, 
grace  would  abound,  and  the  more  sin  we  committed  there  would 
be  the  more  grace  :  but  the  apostle  enters  a  caveat  against  put 
ting  any  such  sense  upon  his  words,  and  says,  '  God  forbid.' 
If  sin  in  this  place  is  to  be  understood  in  Mr.  Wright's  compre 
hensive  sense,  even  then  grace  could  only  abound  as  much  as 
sin  ;  for  how  it  could  abound  more  than  all  sin,  I  confess  I  have 
not  penetration  enough  to  discern ;  but  the  apostle  says  '  much 
more.1  By  sin,  in  this  text,  I  understand  the  sin  of  Adam, 
which  hath  reigned  unto  death,  v.  12.  Grace  abounds  as  much 
as  this  sin,  by  justifying  us  from  it  as  soon  as  we  are  brought 
into  existence,  v.  18.  And  it  abounds  much  more  by  taking 
away  all  the  personal  sins  of  believers,  making  them  righteous, 
and  conducting  them  to  a  glorious  immortality.  This  interpre 
tation  is  confirmed  by  v.  lo,  10.  Here  the  sin  is  called  the 
'  offence  of  one?  and  the  abounding  of  grace  consists  not  only  in 
the  justification  of  many  (all)  persons  from  the  sin  of  Adam, 
but  also  in  the  justification  of  all  believers  from  their  many  per 
sonal  offences.  In  this  view,  the  words  '  much  more  '  may  be 
understood  with  strict  propriety,  if  the  pardon  of  all  the  offences 
committed  by  millions  of  believers  may  be  considered  as  a  mat 
ter  of  great  importance." 

It  would  be  easy  to  show  that  the  passage  we  are  examining 
stands  directly  opposed  to  several  points  strongly  insisted  upon  by 
Universalists.  We  have  here  clearly  taught  the  vicarious  char 
acter  of  Christ's  death,  and  this  based  upon  the  fallen  condition 
of  our  race  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, —  doctrines  which 
Universalists  have  no  belief  in  generally.  In  the  last  verse  we 
have  the  great  design  of  the  plan  of  redemption  in  these  words, 
"  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might  grace  reign 
through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord."  Let  the  Son  of  God  himself  decide  the  question  whether 
or  not  he  died  to  give  this  eternal  life  to  all  moral  agents  uncon 
ditionally.  Hear  him  :  "As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the 
wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up ;  that 


4  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

WHOSOEVER  BELTEVETII  in  him  might  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life."  John  3  :  14,  15.  Again,  v.  3G  :  "  He 
that  believeth  not  the  Son,  SHALL  NOT  SEE  LIFE;  but 
the  wrath  of  God  abidcth  on  him."  Does  Paul  teach  that  eter 
nal  life  is  secured  to  all  unconditionally  ?  No  ;  but  only  those 
"  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  seek  for  glory,  and 
honor,  and  immortality,"  shall  have  "  eternal  life."  Rom. 
'2  :  7.  Again,  "  I  endure  all  things  for  the  elect's  sake,  THAT 
THEY  MAY  OBTAIN  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
with  eternal  glory."  2  Tim.  2  :  10.  What  folly  in  the'apostle] 
if  eternal  glory  is  secured  to  all  !  What  should  we  think  in  our 
day  to  hear  a  Universalist  minister  expressing  himself  thus  ?  It 
will  be  seen  by  the  construction  given  by  Universalists  to  the 
death  by  Adam,  their  denial  of  the  future-state  efficacy  of 
Christ's  death,  and  their  rendering  of  the  phrase  "  eternal  life," 
that  they  utterly  deprive  themselves  of  any  support  to  their  the 
ory  from  this  passage.  But  should  they  change  their  ground, 
as  some  of  them  can  with  great  ease,  and  admit  that  Christ  came 
into  this  world  to  save  men  in  the  next,  and  that  the  expression 
"  eternal  life,"  means  a  life  of  bliss  in  the  future,  then  they  gain 
nothing  for  their  cause  here  ;  for,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Son  of 
God  from  heaven  has  declared  against  the  unconditionally  of  his 
salvation,  and  says  of  some  that  they  "shall  not  see  life;  "  and 
the  apostles  reiterate  the  same  in  various  ways. 

XXX.  "  And  he  shall  send  Jesus  Christ,  which  before  was 
preached  unto  you:  ivhom  the  heaven  must  receive  until  the 
times  of  restitution  of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the 
mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets,  since  the  world  began  "  Acts 
3:20,  21. 

Mr.  Whittemore,  (Guide,  p.  36,)  gives  his  testimony  in  full 
in  favor  of  Christ's  visit  again  to  the  earth  bodily,  at  the  resurrec 
tion  of  the  dead  (See.  XXVI)  ;  a  doctrine,  by  the  way,  which 
is  scouted  by  Universalists  generally ;  and  even  the  same  writer, 
on  page  180  of  the  same  book  says,  "  The  coming  of  the  Lord 


SeC.   80.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  75 

took  place,  as  we  have  said,  during  the  apostolic  age."     And 
when  Paul  (2  Thess.  7)  declares  that  "  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
revealed  from  heaven,"  the  very  sentiment   Mr.  W.  favors,  as 
above  stated,  we   are  told  by  the  same  writer  that  it  took  place 
when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  !      Guide,  p.  189.     The  restitu 
tion  of  all  things  is  to  be  consummated  before  the  coming  of 
Christ.     Now  if  the   coming  of  Christ,  so  often  named  in  the 
Bible,  occurred  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  then  the  resti 
tution  spoken  of  must  have  been  closed  up  at  that  all-important 
event;    and  if  the  restitution  indicates  the  holiness  and  happi 
ness  of  all  men,  then  all  the   human  race  were  saved  nearly 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  !     Seeing  the  consequences  of  such 
a  reference,  the  author  of  the  Guide  was  forced  to  the  admission 
made  concerning  the  bodily  coming  of  Christ,  in  order,  if  possi 
ble,  to  press  the  text  into  the  service  of  his  cause.     But  in  this 
he  utterly  fails.     The  very  point  in  debate  is  assumed,  viz  :  that 
this  restitution  of  all  things,  is  the  salvation  of  all  our  race  in 
eternity.     By  the  restitution  of  all  things,  may  be  understood 
the  restoration  of  all  things  which  will  ever  be  restored  in  this 
world,  which  is  to  be  effected  by  the  gospel.       It  is  written, 
Matt.  17:  11,    "  Elias  truly  shall  first  come  and  restore  all 
things."     Did  the  Saviour  mean  to   teach  that  before  he  could 
begin  his  work,  John  the  Baptist  must  first  save  all  men  ?     No  : 
but  he  was  to  restore  all  to  be  restored  by  his  office  and  mission 
as  the  harbinger  of  the  Messiah.     (Sec.  LXXIV.)     In  the  case 
before  us,  the  restoration  or  restitution  of  all  things  refers  to  the 
work  of  the  gospel  in  this  world ;    and  when  this  shall  be  fully 
accomplished,  according  to  all  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the 
mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets,  then  shall  Christ  come  bodily 
from  heaven  to  raise  the  dead.     For  observe,  "  the  heaven  must 
receive,"  or  contain  him,  until  this  restitution  ;  and  so  far  is  the 
apostle  from  teaching  the  salvation  of  all  men  by  it,  that  he  de 
clares,  respecting  its  progress,  that  "  it  shall  come  to  pass  that 
every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that  Prophet,  (Christ,)  SHALL 
BE  DESTROYED  from    among  the  people."     See  Sec.  I., 


76  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

where  this  subject  is  further  explained  in  connection  with  the 
Abraham ie  Promise. 

XXXI.   "And  in  this  mountain  shall  the  Lord  of  hosts 
make  unto  all  people  a  feast,"  &c.  Isa.  25  :  7-10. 

"He  will  wipe   away  tears  from  off  all  faces."     Does  this 
include  the  whole  human  race  ?     We   answer,  No.     In  reading 
the  Bible,  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  language  expressive  of  a 
mathematical  whole,  is  sometimes  employed  when  a  universal 
whole   is  not  intended.     In  Matt.  3  :  5,  6,   we  learn  that  "  all 
Judea  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  "  were  baptised  of 
John  confessing  their  sins.      But  did  every  man,  woman  and 
child  confess  their  sins  and  receive  John's  baptism  ?     No  sane 
mind  will  assert  this.      "  All  nations  compassed  me  about,  but 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  will  I  destroy  them."     Ps.  118  :  10. 
The  Psalmist's  enemies  were  numerous,  and  he  expected  to  over 
come  them,  is  the  sense.     And  it  is  well  understood  that  Uni- 
versalists,  when  their  case  requires  it,  can  readily  make  all  mean 
a  part  of  the  race.      (Sec.  XLI. )     As  it  respects  the  expression 
"  all  faces"  it  is  said,  (Joel  2  :  G,)     ««  all  faces  shall  gather 
blackness,"  and  in  Ez.  7  :  18,  "  Shame  shall  be  upon  all  faces." 
But  are  these  expressions  predicated  of  all  the  race  of  man  ? 
By  no  means.     We  must  learn  the  application  of  such  language 
either   by  the    connection   in  which  it   is  found,  or   by   other 
scriptures  treating  upon  the  same   subject.     If  we  go  to  the 
connection  in  which  it  is  declared,   "  He  will  wipe  away  tears 
from  off  all  faces,"  we  shall  find  it  is  used  in  a  restricted*  sense. 
By  the  mountain,  where  the  feast  is  provided,  we  understand 
the  church  of  God  in  this  world,  and  not  the  heavenly  state  ;  for 
the  Prophet  adds,    (v.  10,)   "  For  in  this  mountain  shall  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  rest,  and  Moab  shall  be  trodden  down  under 
him,  even  as  straw  is  trodden  down  for  the  dunghill."     If  we 
take  this  passage  literally  as  it  reads,  it  refers  to  The  deliverance 
and  prosperity  of  the  Jews,  and  the  destruction  of  the  Moabites. 
But  if  we  take  a  figurative  view  of  it,  then  we  shall  see  usher- 


Sec.   31.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  77 

ing  in  upon  our  benighted  world,  the  light  of  the  glorious  gospel 
dispensation,  providing  a  spiritual  feast  for  all  people,  and  remov 
ing  the  covering  or  the  veil  of  idolatry  and  superstition  from  all 
nations.  It  teaches,  too,  the  ultimate  deliverance  and  salvation 
of  God's  people,  and  the  destruction  of  his  enemies.  Any  one 
who  will  pay  attention  to  the  whole  passage,  must  see  that  what 
is  said  here  is  not  spoken  of  all  men  in  the  future  world  ;  for 
always  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  not  in  this  world  that  universal 
salvation  is  alleged  to  take  place,  but  in  the  future.  Now  we 
ask,  are  the  Moabites  to  be  destroyed,  to  be  trodden  down  under 
the  Lord,  even  as  straw  is  trodden  down  for  the  dunghill,  in  the 
future  state  ?  This  thought  alone  destroys  the  text  for  Univer- 
salism ;  for  if  men  are  trodden  down  or  destroyed  in  the 
future  world,  then  are  they  not  saved.  This  conclusion  is  inev 
itable,  if  the  prophet  is  speaking  of  the  condition  of  men  in  the 
future  state.  This,  however,  is  not  the  fact;  and  Universalists 
must  admit  that  it  is  not,  or  give  up  their  theory.  The  joy,  sor 
row  and  triumph  of  the  church  in  this  world,  are  taught  here. 
We  are  then  referred  to  the  resurrection.  "  He  will  swallow  up 
death  in  victory,"  v.  8,  when  the  work  of  the  church  militant 
shall  be  closed  up.  But  does  this  teach  that  God  will  put  an 
end  to  all  spiritual  or  moral  death  at  that  time.  No:  for  we 
learn  from  the  apostle  that  this  refers  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  (1  Cor.  15  :  54)  ;  and  as  the  scriptures  nowhere  teach 
that  the  soul  is  to  be  cleansed  by  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
and  thus  produce  holiness  and  happiness,  this  of  course  proves 
nothing  in  favor  of  Universalism,  even  though  it  were  admitted 
that  the  resurrection  of  all  men  is  intended.  All  men,  doubt 
less,  will  be  raised  at  the  end  of  time,  with  the  exception  of 
those  who  shall  experience  a  change  equivalent  to  being  raised. 
But  the  resurrection  of  the  people  of  God  is  indicated  here. 
This  view  harmonizes  with  the  connection,  and  also  with  the 
apostle.  1  Cor.  15.  See  Sec.  XC.  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  the  Saviour  uses  the  same  figure  of  a  feast  or  supper  (Luke 
14  :  16-24)  to  represent  the  gospel  provisions ;  and  speaking  of 


78  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  treatment  those  provisions  received  when  offered  to  some,  the 
Son  of  God  himself,  who  is  represented  by  the  lord  of  the  feast, 
declares  of  such  rejecters,  that  "  THEY  SHALL  NOT  TASTE 
OF  MY  SUPPER,"  This  we  conceive  to  be  far  from  favora 
ble  to  the  idea  that  all  men  shall  enjoy  this  feast  forever. 

XXXII.  "  Now  no  chastening  for  the  present  seemeth  to  be 
joyous,  but  grievous  ;  nevertheless,  afterward  it  yieldeth  the 
peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness  unto  them  which  are  exercised 
thereby."  Heb.  12  :  11. 

As  may  be  seen  by  the  context,  this  is  addressed  to  Chris 
tians  ;  and  the  subject  upon  which  Paul  is  treating,  is  God's 
chastisments  inflicted  upon  his  children  in  this  world,  for  their 
good  ;  and  to  such  they  yield  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteous 
ness.  No  one  ever  thought  that  endless  punishment  was  taught 
in  this  text,  yet  the  author  of  the  Guide  very  gravely  remarks, 
(p.  128,)  "If  this  chastisement  were  strictly  endless,  how 
could  it  afterwards  yield  the  peaceable  fruits  of  righteousness  ? 
Is  there  any  afterwards  to  eternity  ?  "  Thus  a  man  of  straw  is 
made  and  torn  in  pieces,  all  for  the  good  of  Universalism  ! 

XXXIII.  "  Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen  for 
thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy 
possessions."  Ps.  2  :  8.  Also  the  following  texts  are  examined 
in  this  Section  :  John  3  :  35  ;  6  :  37  ;  17  :  2. 

"  God  hath  given  all  things  to  Christ,  as  the  moral  Ruler  of 
the  world.  '  Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  heathen  for 
thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  thy 
possession.'  Ps.  2  :  8.  'The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath 
given  all  things  into  his  hand.'  John  3  :  35.  'All  things/ 
here,  means  all  intelligent  leinys.  So  say  the  best  commenta 
tors."  Guide,  p.  25.  As  this  argument  is  made  to  provo 
Universalism,  we  must  understand  Ps.  2  :  8  as  teaching  the 
unconditional  salvation  of  all  Adam's  race  in  the  future  state. 
To  this  wo  object,  and  appeal  to  the  context.  The  king  of  Zion, 


SCC.  33.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    TIIE    BIBLE.  79 

(v.  6,  7,)  to  whom  the  promise  is  given,  is  Christ,  doubtless. 
But  what  is  ho  promised  ?  Is  it  that  all  shall  be  holy  and 
happy  in  eternity  ?  No,  this  is  not  it ;  but  the  heathen  shall  bo 
his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  his 
possessions;  and  he  is  to  break  them  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and 
dash  them  in  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel  (v.  9).  Then  an  ex 
hortation  is  given  to  kings  and  judges  of  the  earth  to  "  serve  the 
Lord  with  fear,  and  rejoice  with  trembling,"  (v.  10,  11,)  and 
that  they  "  kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry,  and  they  perish  from 
the  way  when  his  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little  (v.  12).  Says 
Mr.  Skinner,  "  None  can  be  saved  from  all  moral  evil  here." 
U.  III.  $  Def.,  p.  261.  It  is  beyond  death,  then,  that  all  are 
to  be  saved.  But  are  the  heathen  to  be  given  to  Christ  beyond 
death  ?  Are  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  to  be  given  to 
Christ  beyond  the  grave  ;  and  is  Christ  to  break  the  heathen  in 
pieces  with  a  rod  of  iron,  &c.,  in  eternity!  How  will  such 
views  comport  with  the  idea  that  there  is  no  condition  for  man 
beyond  the  grave,  but  that  in  which  he  is  as  the  angels  of  God 
in  heaven  ? 

No  more  need  be  said  to  show  the  perversion  of  the  text. 
Its  evident  teaching  is  the  extension  of  Christ's  kingdom  in  the 
earth,  among  the  heathen  nations.  Let  us  now  attend  to  the 
other  text  connected  with  this  to  make  out  the  argument.  "  The 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand." 
Mr.  French,  who  attempted  to  correct  his  brethren  somewhat 
in  a  sermon  before  the  Maine  Convention  of  Universalists,  says, 
"  This  is  a  favorite  text  with  some,  to  prove  our  doctrine.  But 
does  it  have  the  least,  the  faintest  reference  to  it  ?  Do  not  '  all 
things'  here,  denote  the  power  which  is  given  to  Christ,  or 
everything  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  work  ?  Does 
not  the  context  require  this  explanation  ?  And  yet  a  certain 
book  (  Guide,  p.  25)  has  it  that  *  all  things  '  here,  means  intel 
ligent  beings.  So  say  the  best  commentators.'  These  best 
commentators  arc  beyond  our  knowledge ;  yet  enough  are  at  hand 
to  bear  a  contrary  testimony."  Banner,  Aug.  5,  1844.  Thus 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

discourseth  Mr.   French,   concerning  his  brother  Whittemore. 
He  then  names  the  commentators  who  are  opposed  to  Mr.  W.'s 
assertion,  as  follows :    "Scott,    Clarke,   Campbell,   Bloomfield, 
Livermore,  and  Tholuck."     To  these  may  be  added  at  least 
three  more  :  Henry,  Benson,  and  Wesley.     Among  these  are 
some  of  the   best  commentators,  and  they  are  opposed  to  Mr. 
W.'s  view;    yet  Mr.  W.  says,    "So  say  the  best  commenta 
tors  ! '      We  see  that  this  argument  is  built  upon  perverted  texts. 
Another  argument  is  produced  from  the  foregoing  as  follows  : 
"God  gave   all   beings  to   Christ  that   he  might   save   them. 
'  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give 
eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given. him.'  John  17  :  2. 
This  plainly  evinces  that  it  was  God's  design,  in  giving  Christ 
dominion  over  all  flesh,  that  they  should  all  enjoy  eternal  life." 
The  phrase  eternal  life  is,  by  this  same  author,  confined   to  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  believer  in  this  world.     This  being  the  case, 
what  has  Mr.  W.  proved  by  the   argument?     He  has  proved 
that  as  many  as  are  given  to  Christ  in  the  sense  of  the  text,  have 
spiritual  life  in  this  world.     Yet  this  is  presented  as  proof  of 
the  salvation  of  our  race  in  the  future  state  !     Which  shall  we 
credit ;  Mr.  W.  on  page  140  of  his  Guide,  or  Mr.  W.  on  page 
25  of  the  same  book  ?     The  assumption  is  that  all  mankind  are 
given  to  Christ,  and  that  eternal  life  is  bestowed  upon  all  thus 
given.     We  are  then  told  that  the  phrase   eternal  life  "  is  not 
used  by  the  sacred  writers  to  signify  endless  blessedness  beyond 
the  grave  ;  but  that  state  of  spiritual  life  and  peace  which  was 
the  immediate  effect  of  faith  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus   Christ." 
Guide,  p.  140.     The  inevitable  conclusion  is,  as  above  stated, 
that  all  men  have  spiritual  life  and  peace  in  this  world.    Hence, 
the  jolliest  Universalist,   the  ripest  infidel,  the  most  debased 
drunkard,  the  most  polluted  libertine,  and  the  most  humble  and 
pious  Christian,  may  all  strike  hands  in  joyful  possession  of  that 
spiritual  life  and  peace  which  faith  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ  im 
parts  !!    To  such  results  do  the  crooked  works  of  these  expound 
ers  lead.     But  admitting  that  eternal  life  does  mean  a  life  of 


SeC.   33.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  81 

bliss  in  the  future  state,  does  not  the  text  then  teach  the  salva 
tion  of  all  men  ?  No  :  for  it  has  been  shown  most  conclusively, 
that  all  are  not  given  to  Christ  in  the  sense  involved  ;  and  it- 
can  be  shown  by  an  abundance  of  scriptures,  that  eternal  life  is 
not  bestowed  unconditionally  upon  adult  sinners.  (Sec.  XXIX.) 
We  now  come  to  another  argument,  built  mainly  upon  the  two 
we  have  considered.  "It  is  certain  that  Christ  will  save  all 
that  the  Father  hath  given  him.  '  All  that  the  Father  giveth 
me  shall  come  to  me,  and  him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  nowise 
cast  out.'  John  6  :  37.  These  three  propositions  are  irrefraga 
ble  evidence  of  the  final  happiness  of  all  men."  Now  the  whole 
of  this  work  is  built  upon  perverted  texts  and  assumptions. 

1.  Christ  is  to  have  the  heathen  for  his  inheritance,  &c.     Ps. 
2:8.     This  is  perverted  to  teach  that  all  shall  be  holy  and  hap 
py  in  the  future  state. 

2.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things,  &c. 
John  3  :  35.     This  is  perverted  to  mean  all  intelligent  beings. 

3.  We  are  told  that  God  gave  all  intelligent  beings  to  Christ, 
that  he  might  save  them ;  i.  e.  save  them  in   the  future  world  : 
and  then  Mr.  W.  brings  for  proof  an  expression,  the  future-state 
reference  of  which  he  himself  denies  !     He   perverts  this  text, 
(John  17  :  2,)     however,   not   by  referring  it   to  the   future, 
but  by  pressing  it  in  to  teach  that  all  shall  enjoy  eternal  life  in 
the  future  state. 

4.  Then  comes  the  text  which  is  designed  to  top  out  the  fab 
ric  so  skilfully  reared  upon  a  rotten  foundation.     "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me 
I  will  in  nowise   cast  out."  John  6  :  37.     "  It  is  certain  that 
Christ  will  save  all  that  the  Father  hath  given  him.     So  says 
Mr.  Whittemore.     We  have  already  seen  the  baseless  character 
of  his  reasonings,  built  as  they  are  upon  perverted  texts  ;  and 
this  is  sufficient  to  show  that  nothing  is  proved  for  Universalism. 
But  we  have  one  more  witness  to  introduce  to  show  the  falsity  of 
this  whole   argument.     We  ask,  then,  has  the  Father  given  all 
men  to  Christ,  to  be  saved  in  the  sense  of  the  text  last  quoted  ? 

6 


82  UNIVEHSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Let  the  faithful  and  true  witness  answer.  "  I  pray  not  for  the 
world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  given  me."  "  They  are 
not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world."  John  17  : 
9,  16.  Does  the  Saviour  say  tljat  all  men  are  given  to  him,  and 
that  he  will  save  all  men  unconditionally  in  the  future  ?  Noth 
ing  like  it;  but  those  who  are  given  to  him,  are  distinguished 
from  others  who  are  called  "  of  the  world"  and  are  not  given 
to  him.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  too,  that  even  those  who  are 
his,  are  not  so  given  to  him  as  to  secure  their  unconditional  sal 
vation  ;  for  it  appears  that  Judas  was  among  those  given,  and 
yet  he  was  lost  (v.  12).  See  also  Ps.  41 :  9,  and  John  13:18; 
also  Matt.  26  :  24.  That  such  as  are  given  to  Christ,  or  the 
elect,  may  be  lost,  is  evident  from  the  apostle,  where  he  says, 
(2  Tim.  2  :  10,)  "I  endure  all  things  for  the  elect's  sake,  that 
they  may  obtain  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  with  eter 
nal  glory."  All  will  see  that  the  sufferings  of  Paul  for  these 
elect  persons  was  wholly  unnecessary  if  they  were  unconditionally 
safe  and  sure  of  heaven.  In  view  of  these  facts,  what  becomes 
of  Mr.  Whittemore's  boasted  "  irrefragable  evidence  of  the  final 
happiness  of  all  men  ?  " 

XXXIV.  "  For  we  which  have  believed  do  enter  into  rest." 
Heb.  4  :  3. 

"  Paul* ays,  '  we  which  have  believed  do  enter  into  rest; ' 
which  could  never  be  true  if  they  believed  in  the  doctrine  of 
endless  misery."  Guide,  p.  51.  To  meet  this  foolish  argu 
ment,  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  that  Paul  says,  "  we  which 
have  believed  do  enter  into  rest;  "  which  could  never  be  true, 
if  they  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  Jerusalem's  destruction,  where 
such  awful  calamities  were  to  come  upon  their  Jewish  brethren. 
Can  a  system  of  truth  from  heaven  require  such  an  argument  to 
sustain  it  ? 


Sec.   35.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  83 

XXXV.  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Cain,  Where  is  Abel 
thy  brother?  "  &c.  Gen.  4  :  9-15;  also  chap.  7  :  23,  and 
19  :  24,  25. 

All  we  have  to  do  with  this  passage  is  to  expose  the  sophistry 
employed  upon  it,  as  Christians  never  supposed  that  either 
heaven  or  hell  were  taught  here.  Says  one  writer,  "  neither  in 
the  threatenings  nor  the  fears  of  Cain,  do  we  find  anything  of 
endless  woe.  He  was  to  be  a  fugitive  and  vagabond  in  the 
earth."  U.  III.  $  Def.,  p.  199. 

The  conclusion  from  this  kind  of  argument  is,  that  there  is  no 
future  punishment.  To  show  the  unsoundness  of  this,  it  is  only 
necessary  for  us  to  ask  a  few  questions.  Why  did  not  God  tell 
Cain  something  about  the  resurrection  and  heavenly  bliss  ?  When 
he  complained  that  his  punishment  was  greater  than  he  could 
bear,  why  did  not  God  inform  Cain  that  he  could  not  sin  enough 
to  bring  upon  himself  any  more  punishment  than  should  prove  a 
blessing  to  him  ?  Why  was  he  not  told  that  all  punishment  ia 
disciplinary,  and  that  "  a  remission  of  punishment  would  be  a 
curse  instead  of  a  mercy ;  because  a  just  punishment  is  as  essen 
tial  to  our  welfare  as  anything  that  love  can  do  "  ?  (  U.  III.  fy 
-Def.,  p.  250)  ;  or,  in  other  words,  why  did  not  God  tell  Cain 
that  he  was  about  to  bless  him  for  murdering  his  brother? 
Again,  when  he  expressed  his  fears,  "  every  one  that  findeth  me 
shall  kill  me,"  why  did  not  the  Lord  comfort  him  by  assuring 
him  heavenly  bliss  in  such  a  case  ?  But  all  the  comfort  God 
administered  to  Cain  in  this  trying  hour,  pertained  to  this  life. 
Why  was  he  not  informed  that  all  he  could  possibly  have  lost  by 
dying  in  the  very  act  of  murdering  his  brother,  would  have  been 
the  blessing  of  punishment  for  that  last  sin  ?  The  reader  will 
see  that  questions  might  be  proposed  and  negatives  asserted  to 
almost  any  extent,  which  would  amount  to  but  little  in  argu 
ment.  If  the  absence  of  the  record  that  God  told  Cain  about  a 
future  hell  is  proof  that  there  is  none,  then  for  the  same  reason 
there  is  no  resurrection,  no  world  of  bliss,  and  punishment  is  not 


84  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    TUB    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

disciplinary ;  for  God  told  Cain  nothing  about  these.  This  being 
the  case,  what  becomes  of  Universalisin  ?  In  a  word,  there  is 
no  future  life  whatever,  and  this  is  the  result  of  such  teachings. 
The  destruction  of  the  old  world,  (Gen.  7  :  23,)  and  of 
Gomorrah,  (chap.  19  :  24,  25,)  they  labor  to  turn  to  their  account 
in  the  same  way.  It  is  asked  :  "  If  an  infinite  curse  was  to  come 
on  the  antediluvians,  why  was  God  silent  respecting  it  ?  Or  if 
he  preached  it  to  the  people,  why  have  we  no  record  of  the 
fact  ?  "  Of  Gomorrah  it  is  said,  "God  said  he  would  not  hide 
from  Abraham  what  he  was  about  to  do ;  but  he  gave  no  inti 
mation  of  endless  punishment."  U.  III.  fy  Def.,  p.  199.  To 
meet  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  ask,  if  Noah,  a  preacher  of 
righteousness  for  a  hundred  and  twenty  years,  was  a  Univer- 
salist,  and  conveyed  the  glad  tidings  to  the  wicked  antediluvi 
ans  that  they  all  would  go  immediately  to  bliss  when  the  flood 
should  come,  "why  have  we  no  record  of  the  fact?"  God 
would  not  hide  from  Abraham  what  he  was  about  to  do.  Gen. 
18  :  17.  Now  if  Abraham  understood  the  promise  made  to  him 
(Gen.  18  :  12)  to  signify  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  eternity,  if 
he  taught  the  filthy  Sodomites  that  nought  but  bliss  awaited 
them  in  the  future  world,  or  if  he  taught  them  anything  relative 
to  a  future  life,  why  are  the  scriptures  silent  about  it  ?  Why 
have  we  no  record  of  the  fact  !  It  will  be  seen  that  the  method 
adopted  to  render  the  case  of  Cain,  the  antediluvians,  and  the 
Sodomites,  subservient  to  Universalism,  can  with  equal  propri 
ety  be  turned  against  that  system  ;  and  yet  that  dogma  is  depen 
dent  for  its  support  upon  just  such  work  with  the  scriptures. 
Can  it  be  the  truth  of  God  ?  Universalists  have  much  to  say 
concerning  the  absence  of  an  explicit  declaration  in  favor  of 
future  punishment  among  the  Patriarchs  or  the  Jews  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  consider  this  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  their 
doctrine.  But  was  it  explicitly  declared  to  them  by  God  or  any 
of  his  servants  that  there  is  no  punishment  beyond  the  grave, 
or  that  all  shall  be  saved  in  the  future  world  ?  Let  the  passage 


Sec     37.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  85 

be  produced,  if  it  can  be  found.  If  it  cannot  be  found,  let  Uni- 
versalists  be  consistent,  and  deny  a  future  life  altogether. 

XXXVI.  "  And  all  bare  him  witness,  and  wondered  at  the 
gracious  words  which  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth."  Luke 

4:  22. 

Upon  this  the  author  of  the  Guide  makes  an  argument  as  fol 
lows  :  "  Jesus  when  on  earth  preached  in  such  a  manner,  that 
the  people  '  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  which  proceeded 
out  of  his  mouth.'  This  could  not  have  happened  had  he  threat 
ened  the  people  with  endless  punishment."  Guide,  p.  43. 
Universalist  authors  not  only  admit  that  Christ  foretold  Jerusa 
lem's  destruction,  but  contend  that  no  small  portion  of  the  New 
Testament  is  occupied  with  it.  In  view  of  their  professions,  one 
writer  has  advised  them  to  label  it,  "  THE  DESTRUCTION 
OF  JERUSALEM  FORETOLD."  Let  us  apply  the  argu 
ment.  Jesus,  when  upon  earth,  preached  in  such  a  manner  that 
the  people  (Jews)  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  which  pro 
ceeded  out  of  his  mouth.  This  could  not  have  happened  had  he 
threatened  them  with  the  horrid  cruelties  they  suffered  when  the 
Romans  came  against  them,  together  with  the  destruction  of  their 
city  and  temple,  which  they  loved  so  well  !  Take  the  threatened 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  out  of  the  Bible,  and  one  of  the  main 
pillars  of  Universalism  is  gone.  All  must  see  that  the  latter 
argument  is  as  sound  as  the  former,  and  that  neither  amount  to 

O 

anything.  Was  all  Christ's  language  accounted  "gracious 
words"  by  his  hearers  !  He  addressed  some  thus:  "Ye  ser 
pents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation 
of  hell  ?  "  See  the  whole  of  Matt.  chap.  23. 

XXXVII.     "  God  is  love."— I  John  4  :  16. 

By  the  manner  this  saying  has  been  treated  by  Universalists, 
we  should  conclude  that  love  was  not  an  attribute  of  God,  but 
constituted  the  divine  substance,  or  essence,  or  in  other  words 
that  love  is  God.  But  if  we  are  to  adopt  this  view  because  it 


86  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

is  asserted  that  God  is  love,  then  we  may  with  equal  propriety 
affirm  that  light  is  God,  and  that  spirit  is  God  ;  for  it  is  written, 
"  God  is  a  spirit,"  "  God  is  light."  By  this  method  we  might 
soon  manufacture  as  many  gods  as  the  heathen  have,  with  na 
tures  as  opposite  to  each  other.  We  are  not  to  conclude  because 
God  is  love,  that  therefore  he  is  nothing  else.  The  love  of  God 
is  always  displayed  in  harmony  with  his  other  perfections.  We 
admit,  as  is  contended,  that  God's  love  always  did  exist,  now 
exists,  and  always  will  exist ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all 
will  be  saved.  For  God  to  be  love  is  one  thing,  and  for  men  to 
love  God  is  quite  another.  God's  love  exists  independently  of 
his  creatures,  but  man's  happiness  depends  upon  his  moral  state. 
The  unchangeableness  of  God's  love  has  been  urged  as  a  reason 
why  all  are  to  be  saved.  But  this  very  argument  is  fatal  to  the 
Universalist  conclusion  drawn  from  the  love  of  God ;  for  accord 
ing  this,  God's  love  will  be  the  same  in  all  future  ages  that  it  is 
now,  and  was  when  sin  and  misery  entered  the  world ;  and  if  his 
love  did  not  prevent  sin,  and  does  not  now  save  all  men  uncon 
ditionally,  what  evidence  have  we,  merely  from  the  fact  that  God 
is  love,  that  it  shall  be  done  hereafter  ?  Just  none  at  all.  It 
will  amount  to  nothing  in  argument  to  say  that  the  present 
untold  misery  of  our  race  is  only  the  result  of  a  system  of  means 
adopted  by  love  to  secure  to  man  a  great  good  in  the  end  ;  for 
such  means  are  cruel  and  unnecessary  if  all  men  are  to  be  saved 
unconditionally  as  the  effect  of  love  ;  for  God's  love  can  call  to 
its  aid  almighty  power  and  infinite  wisdom  to  destroy  sin  and 
misery  now,  just  as  effectually  as  it  can  ages  hence.  Men  may 
be  under  the  necessity  of  adopting  a  severe  and  painful  course 
to  secure  good  to  others,  as  the  chastisement  of  a  child,  or  the 
amputation  of  a  limb  to  save  life  ;  but  what  man  who  loved  his 
child  or  friend  would  do  this  if  he  could  secure  the  same  good 
without  it  ?  Now  if  it  be  a  mere  question  of  God's  love,  power, 
or  any  or  all  his  attributes,  irrespective  of  man's  agency,  he 
certainly  can  be  under  no  such  necessity  as  to  introduce  or  per 
mit  sin  and  suffering  for  six  thousand  years  in  our  world,  for 


Sec.   38.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


87 


lie  can  destroy  these  at  once  and  spread  peace  and  happiness 
throughout  the  universe.  But  sin  and  misery  continue,  which 
shows  us  the  folly  of  reasoning  from  the  love  of  God  to  prove 
the  salvation  of  all  men  ;  for  if  present  love  does  not  save  from 
present  suffering,  what  presumption  to  suppose  that  future  love 
will  save  from  future  suffering.  The  fact  that  God's  love  is 
unchangeable,  lies  with  mighty  weight  against  Universalism.  If 
it  could  be  proved  that  the  love  of  God  will  change  at  a  future 
time,  so  as  to  operate  differently  in  his  moral  system  from  what 
it  ever  has  before,  then  perhaps  an  argument  might  be  raised 
from  it  to  prove  the  salvation  of  all  men  as  the  result  of  such  a 
change.  But  as  God's  love  never  changes,  and  as  the  wide 
spread  sufferings  of  our  earth  for  thousands  of  years  is  not  in 
compatible  with  it,  so  for  aught  that  can  be  shown  it  may  not  be 
incompatible  with  it  for  impenitent  men  to  suffer  endlessly.  For 
God  to  possess  the  attribute  of  love  is  one  thing,  but  for  him  to 
so  love  all  men  as  to  save  them  unconditionally  in  the  future 
world,  is  quite  another  thing,  especially  since  he  has  said  of  cer 
tain  characters,  "  I  will  love  them  no  more."  Hosea  9:15. 
On  love  as  a  passion  in  God,  see  Sec.  CXX.  On  love  consistent 
with  eternal  punishment,  see  Sec.  CXXXIX.  On  the  attributes 
of  God,  see  Sections  CIV.  and  CXIV. 

XXXVIII.  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth"  —  Gen.  1:1. 

Speaking  of  the  Bible,  Mr.  Rogers  says,  "  it  informs  me  that 
'  in  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,'  but 
no  mention  is  made  of  his  having  created  a  HELL  !  "  Pro  and 
Con,  p.  280.  This  argument  is  put  forth  by  one  who  has  been 
counted  a  Rabbi  in  the  order.  Such  questions  as  where  is  hell  ? 
when  was  it  created  ?  are  quite  common  with  some  ;  and  not 
obtaining  a  satisfactory  answer,  it  is  quite  evident  to  such  that 
there  is  no  future  and  endless  punishment.  It  would  be  a 
severe  reflection  upon  the  understanding  of  their  leaders  to  say 
that  they  know  no  better  than  to  present  such  ati  argument  for 


88  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  reception  of  the  ignorant.  The  truth  is,  we  have  no  more 
history  touching  the  creation  of  heaven,  as  a  place  of  bliss,  than 
we  have  of  hell  as  a  place  of  torments.  The  heaven  named  in 
the  history  is  the  firmament,  as  all  may  see  by  reading  it.  The 
argument  stands  thus :  If  there  were  any  hell  where  men  will 
suffer  in  the  future  world,  there  would  be  an  account  of  its 
creation  in  the  Bible.  There  is  no  such  account  in  the  Bible  ; 
therefore,  there  is  no  hell  for  men  to  suffer  in  the  future  world. 
Let  us  apply  this  in  another  direction.  If  there  were  any  heaven 
where  men  will  be  happy  in  the  future  world,  there  would  be  an 
account  of  its  creation  in  the  Bible.  There  is  no  such  account ; 
therefore,  there  is  no  heaven  for  men  to  enjoy  in  the  future 
world.  There  is  then  no  endless  suffering  to  be  feared,  and  no 
endless  bliss  to  be  hoped  for  !  To  such  results  are  we  led  in 
this  warfare  against  the  truth  of  God.  If  this  is  so,  what  be 
comes  of  Universalism  ? 

XXXEX.  "  Every  valley  shall  be  exalted,  and  every  moun 
tain  and  hill  shall  be  made  low :  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made 
straight,  and  the  rough  places  plain.  And  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  shall  be,  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together :  for 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hatJi  spolcen  it."  Isa.  40  :  4,  5. 

As  all  men  are  not  saved  in  this  world,  in  the  Universalist 
sense,  the  assumption  upon  this  passage  is,  that  all  the  progeny 
of  Adam  shall  be  made  holy  and  happy  in  the  future  state.  Any 
believer  in  a  future  retribution  can  admit  that  God's  glory  will 
be  revealed  in  the  future  judgment,  and  that  all  men  will  see  it 
together ;  and  that  too,  without  admitting  that  all  will  be  saved. 
But  we  deny  the  future  state  reference  of  the  passage.  It  is  a 
highly  poetical  description  of  the  achievements  of  the  gospel  in 
this  world  ;  and  the  leveling  process  preparatory  to  it  had  its  ful 
fillment  in  'the  labors  of  John  the  Baptist.  See  Luke  3  :  35. 
But  it  is  said,  the  expression  "  all  flesh"  must  mean  the  whole 
race  of  man.  Not  so,  for  Joel  prophesied  that  God  would  pour 
out  his  "  spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  (  Joel  2  :  28,)  and  this,  as  the 


SeC.  40.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  89 

inspired  Peter  declared,  had  its  fulfillment  on  the  day  of  Pente 
cost.  Acts  2  :  16,  17.  All  flesh  here  cannot  mean  the  whole 
race  of  man,  for  millions  had  lived  and  died  before  that  day. 
By  the  declaration  that  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God, 
we  may  understand  that  there  will  be  such  a  display  of  God's 
glory  in  the  world  through  the  gospel,  that  all  men  then  living 
shall  see  it,  or  it  may  be  enjoy  it. 

XL.      "  The  blood  of  Jesus   Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all 
sin."     1  John  1  :  7. 

"  There  is  no  sin  that  the  blood  of  Christ  will  not  wash  away. 
Though  our  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  white  as  snow ; 
and,  though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool. 
Jesus  can  save  the  chief  of  sinners.  1  Tim.  1  : 15.  He  has 
the  will,  no  less  than  the  power  ;  therefore,  all  men  will  be  saved 
by  his  grace."  Guide,  p.  52.  Here  the  entire  argument  of 
Mr.  Whittemore  is  given  to  prove  Universalism  from  this  text, 
and  we  have  seldom  seen  more  perversion  in  so  small  a  com 
pass.  As  this  argument  is  made  to  prove  Universalism,  it  is  of 
course  assumed  that  the  blood  of  Christ  will  cleanse  uncondi 
tionally  all  the  race  of  man  from  all  sin.  But  the  connection  in 
which  the  text  is  found,  clearly  refutes  this.  The  whole  verse 
reads  thus  :  ' '  But  if  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light, 
we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  Cleanseth  US. 
Who  ?  All  men  ?  No  ;  but  such  as  "  walk  in  the  light,"  &c. 
Reference  is  made  to  Isa.  1:18.  By  turning  to  it,  it  will  be 
seen  that  God  is  addressing  the  rebellious  Jews  and  declaring  to 
them,  not  his  ability  to  save  them  independent  of  their  moral 
agency,  but  that  in  case  they  gave  up  their  rebellion  and  turned 
to  him  he  woulcl  cleanse  them.  The  whole  of  this  silly  argu 
ment  is  based  upon  the  unwarranted  assumption  that  Christ  is 
willing  and  able  to  save  all  men  irrespective  of  their  agency, 
and  having  this  ability  and  will,  all  men  will  be  saved.  But 
we  are  authorized  from  the  Bible  to  say  that  there  are  gome 
6* 


90  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

things  that  God  himself  cannot  do.  He  cannot  lie.  He  cannot 
deny  himself;  and  as  a  moral  governor  he  cannot  save  sinners 
without  penitence.  The  almighty  Saviour  could  not  do  many 
mighty  works  in  one  place  because  of  their  unbelief,  (Matt.  13  : 
5-8,)  and  although  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  yet  he 
only  will  save  such  as  come  unto  him.  Heb.  7  :  25.  We  deny 
the  ability  of  Christ  to  save  those  who  reject  him.  "  Ye  will 
not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life,"  said  he  to  those 
who  spurned  his  invitations. 

XLI.  "  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory" 
&c.  Matt.  25  :  31-46. 

Universalists  now  seem  to  be  quite  astonished  because  we 
cannot  see  Jerusalem's  destruction  in  this  passage.  But  why 
should  they  be  surprised  at  our  dullness,  since  Mr.  Ballou,  with 
all  his  sagacity,  preached  for  years  before  he  thought  of  denying 
its  future  state  reference,  and  even  when  he  did  deny  it  he 
never  once  thought  of  consigning  the  passage  over  to  Jerusalem, 
but  saw  most  clearly  that  it  had  its  fulfillment  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  In  his  "Treatise  on  the  Atonement,"  p.  179, 
printed  in  1828,  ten  years  after  he  made  the  discovery  that  after 
death  there  is  no  judgment,  the  following  exposition  occurs  : 
"  The  time  of  Christ's  coming  in  his  glory  was  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  His  holy  angels  with  whom  he  came,  were  his 
chosen  apostles.  His  glory  is  the  gospel  of  eternal  life.  Sheep 
and  goats  signify  believers  and  unbelievers.  Right  hand  and 
left  means  gospel  and  law.  The  believer  stands  in  the  gospel 
of  life.  The  unbeliever  is  condemned  already,  and  the  wrath 
of  God,  in  the  letter  of  the  law,  abideth  upon  him."  This  was 
given  at  the  time  with  much  positiveness,  and  doubtless  many  a 
sin-loving  disciple  was  made  joyful  by  such  a  handy  method 
invented  to  get  rid  of  a  text  so  troublesome  to  wicked  men.  It 
was  received  as  the  pure  bread  of  life,  the  truth,  in  opposition  to 
the  monstrosities  of  the  purblind  Partialists.  Mr.  Murray  was 
quite  sure  that  this  passage  referred  to  the  future  judgment,  and 


Sec.  41.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  91 

that  the  sheep  were  all  mankind,  and  the  goats  the  fallen  an 
gels,  or  devils,  (Universalist  Comp.  1856,  p.  20,)  involving 
the  absurd  idea  that  the  devils  were  condemned  for  not  attend 
ing  to  their  duty  (v.  42-44,)  in  visiting  Christ's  followers  in 
sickness  and  other  calamities !  It  is  but  about  thirty-eight 
years  since  Universalists  began  to  deny  that  this  scripture  re 
ferred  to  the  future  world,  and  while  some  adopted  the  same 
quibbling  that  their  modern  brethren  do,  to  show  that  the  word 
everlasting  does  not  mean  endless,  there  were  others  among 
them  who  admitted  that  endless  punishment  is  deserved  and 
threatened  in  the  Bible,  but  that  all  will  be  saved  from  it  by  the 
atonement,  or  that  it  will  be  remitted  to  all  upon  the  same  prin 
ciple  that  the  Ninevites  were  saved  from  their  threatened  pun 
ishment.  Dr.  Huntington  (Sec.  CXXVI.)  was  a  roan  of 
learning,  and  wrote  a  book  to  prove  Universalism.  Mr.  Whit- 
temore  says  of  him,  that  he  "  found  fault  with  Universalists  in 
general  for  trifling  with  the  original  word  translated  forever  ; 
and  in  reference  to  the  question,  "  Does  the  Bible  plainly  say 
that  sinners  of  mankind  shall  be  damned  to  interminable  pun 
ishment?'  he  answered,  '  It  certainly  does,  as  plainly  as  lan 
guage  can  express,  or  any  man,  or  even  God  himself,  can 
speak.'  '  The  endless  duration  of  punishment,'  said  he,  'ap 
pears  obviously  just,  no  more  than  we  deserve,  and  not  in  the 
least  cruel  for  God  to  inflict.'  '  Mr.  W.  also  says,  "  Hunting- 
ton's  system  differed  very  little,  if  any,  from  Kelly's."  Mod. 
Hist.,  pp.  884-5. 

But  the  children  have  outgrown  their  fathers,  and  now  it  is 
denied  that  endless  punishment  was  ever  deserved  or  threatened, 
and  it  is  boldly  asserted  that  Christ  never  came  into  this  world 
to  save  us  in  the  next.  Their  once  positive  truth  has  become 
untruth,  and  they  now  as  positively  assert  that  the  passage 
we  are  about  to  consider  had  its  fulfillment  in  Jerusalem's 
destruction  by  the  Romans.  To  assist  us  in  coming  at  the  truth 
in  this  examination,  let  us  inquire  into  the  current  theology  of 
the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's  time.  Did  they  believe  in  a  general 


92  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

future  judgment,  and  that  a  sentence  consequent  upon  it  of 
everlasting  bliss  and  punishment  should  be  passed  by  the  judge 
upon  men  according  to  their  works  ?  Josephus,  the  Jewish 
historian  of  those  times,  treating  upon  Jewish  belief,  writes 
thus  :  "For  all  men,  the  just  as  well  as  the  unjust,  shall  be 
brought  before  God  the  word ;  for  to  him  hath  the  Father  com 
mitted  all  judgment ;  and  he,  in  order  to  fulfill  the  will  of  his 
Father,  shall  come  as  judge,  whom  we  call  Christ."  "  This 
person,  exercising  the  righteous  judgment  of  the  Father  towards 
all  men,  hath  prepared  a  just  sentence  for  every  one,  according 
to  his  works ;  at  whose  judgment  seat,  when  all  men,  and 
angels,  and  demons  shall  stand,  they  will  send  forth  one  voice, 
and  say,  just  is  the  judgment :  the  rejoinder  to  which  will  bring 
a  just  sentence  upon  both  parties,  by  giving  justly  to  those  that 
have  done  well  an  everlasting  fruition  ;  but  allotting  to  the 
lovers  of  wicked  works  eternal  punishment."  Dis.  to  the  Greeks 
concerning  Hades. 

That  the  Saviour,  Matt.  25  :  31-4G,  had  this  scene  in  view 
cannot  be  doubted  for  a  moment  by  those  who  will  compare  the 
passage  with  the  theology  of  the  Jews.  The  question  now  is, 
did  the  Saviour  take  this  tremendous  scene,  which  the  Jews 
firmly  believe  would  take  place  in  a  future  state,  and  use  it  as  a 
figure  to  illustrate  a  temporal  calamity  about  to  come  upon 
Jerusalem,  and  that,  too,  without  the  least  intimation  that  he 
BO  used  it  ?  Are  Universalist  ministers  of  the  present  day  in 
the  habit  of  using  the  doctrine  of  future  and  eternal  retribu 
tions  to  illustrate  temporal  evils,  and  that,  too,  without  express 
ing  the  least  dissent  from  it,  or  ever  once  informing  their  hearers 
that  the  figure  they  employ  is  a  false  notion  and  not  a  fact  ? 
All  know  that  the  great  burden  of  their  preaching  in  our  day  is 
to  berate  and  disprove  a  future  judgment  and  endless  punishment  ; 
but  for  this  work  they  have  not  a  single  precedent  in  all  the 
labors  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
(Sec.  CXXXII.)  How  shall  we  reconcile  the  discrepancy  be 
tween  those  claimed  as  ancient  Universalists  and  modern 


Sec.  41.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  93 

receivers  of  the  doctrine  ?      On  no  principle  other  than  that 
Universalisrn  is  FALSE. 

While  we  admit  that   Christ  speaks  of   the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  in  Matt, ,  24th  chapter,  we  do  not  admit  that  this  is 
the  only  subject  upon  which  he  treats.     The  following  thoughts 
may  assist  the  reader  in  scattering  the  mist  thrown  upon  the 
24th  and  25th  chapters  by  Universalists.     Christ  said   of  the 
temple,  chap.  24th,  ver.  2,  "  There  shall  not  be  left  here  one 
stone  upon  another  that  shall  not  be  thrown  down."     This  led 
his  disciples  to  inquire,  ver.  3,  "  When  shall  these  things  be? 
and  what  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and  the   end  of  the 
world  ?  "     In  this  we  have  a  three-fold  question  relating  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  end  of 
the  world.     Now  in  a  reply  from  the  Saviour  we  may  expect  an 
answer  to  each  question,  and  in  doing  this  he  gives  from  verse 
4th  to  14th  the  general  signs  which  have  been  taking  place  from 
the  time  of  the  Saviour  to  the  present,  the  last  of  which  is  given 
as  follows  :   "  And  this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world, 
for  a  witness  unto  all  nations,  then  shall  the  end  come."     Now 
the  end  here  cannot  mean  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  or  dispen 
sation  for  that  closed  with  the  death  of  Christ.     (Sec.  LXXVII.) 
There  is  no  authority  from  the   scriptures  for  extending   the 
Jewish  dispensation  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  Univer 
salists  are  wont  to  do,  for  the  Apostle  clearly  shows  us,  Heb. 
9  :  16,  17,  that  the  New  Testament,  or  gospel  dispensation,  was 
introduced  by  the  death  of  the  Saviour.     Now  if  the  end  here 
means  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  then  the  gospel  was  preached 
in  all  the  world,  as  a  witness  to  all  nations  before  the  death  of 
Christ !     The  truth  is,  the  end  here  named  means  the  end  of 
the  Christian  dispensation,  or  the  end  of  time,  and  this  last 
general  sign  is  being  fulfilled  now  by  the  spread  of  the  gospel 
among   the   nations.     The  reader   can  turn  to  the  scriptures 
referred  to,  as  we  omit  to  copy  the  most  of  them  on  account  of 
their  length.     We  come  now  to  his  answer  to  their  question, 
"  When  shall  these  things  be?"     This  may  be  called  the  second 
division  of  Matt.  24,  beginning  with  verse  15,  and  closing  with 


94  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

verse  22.    Here  the  Saviour  imparts  instruction  concerning  Jeru 
salem's  destruction.     Included  here  is  the  passage  that  has  been 
used  to  disprove  endless  punishment.     "  For  then  shall  there  be 
great  tribulation,  such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the 
world  to  this  time,  no,  nor  ever  shall  be."     Yer.  21.     It  has 
been  affirmed,  that  as  the   Saviour  asserts  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  to  be  the  greatest  tribulation,  endless  punishment 
must  be  false.     Paul,  years  before  the  Komans  came   against 
that  city,  said  of  the  Jews,  1  Thess,  2:16,"  Wrath  IS  come 
upon  them  to  the  UTTERMOST."     But  are  we  to  infer  from 
this  that  our  Saviour's  prediction  never  had  its  fulfillment  on  the 
Jews?     Such   an  idea  would  be   considered  the  most   paltry 
quibbling ;  but  it  is  no  more  so  than  to  attempt  an  argument 
from  our  Saviour's  words  against  endless  punishment.     The 
text  is  a  strong  hyperbolic  expression  to  show  the   dreadful 
calamity  which  should  befall  the  Jewish  nation  in  this  world, 
irrespective  of  man's  condition  in  the  future,  and  to   say  that 
the  Jews  at  that  time  were  to  suffer  more  than  all,  or  any,  men 
ever  would  after  that  event,  well  becomes  the  cause  it  is  designed 
to  support ;  but  truth  requires  no  such  work.     To  confine,  if 
possible,  all  our  Lord's  predictions  in   this  (24th)  chapter  to 
Jerusalem's  overthrow,  his  words  in  verse  34  are  often  quoted 
to  show  that  all  the  things- named  were  to  take  place  during  the 
natural  lives  of  the  then  existing  inhabitance,  thus  defining  the 
term  "generation"  to  mean  the  time  from  the  birth  of  a  man  until 
he  becomes  a  parent,  or  about  thirty  years.     But  in  the  Bible 
it  is  sometimes  used  to  designate  a  race  of  men,  or  a  kind,  sort, 
or  species.     When  the  Saviour  says,  "  This  generation  shall  not 
pass  away  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled,"  he  means,  as  we 
conceive,  that  the  Jewish  race  should  not  become  extinct  until 
that  which  he  had  predicted  should  be  fulfilled.     In  speaking 
upon  the  same  subject,  Luke  21  :  24,  he  says,  "  Jerusalem  shall 
be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles 
be  fulfilled."     This  implies  that  Jerusalem  should  cease  to  be 
trodden  down,  and  that  too  before  that  generation  should  pass 
away.     Jerusalem  is  still  trodden  down  of  the   Gentiles  ;  but 


Sec.  41.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  95 

the  Jewish  race,  though  scattered  and  peeled  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  as  by  miracle,  still  retain  their  national  prejudices  and 
forms  of  worship.     Understanding,  then,  by  this  generation,  tho 
Jews  as  a  distinct  race,  the   prediction  appears  to  be  literally 
true,  and  in  keeping  with  other  prophecies  relating  to  the  same 
event.     Paul  says,  (Rom.  11 :  51,)  "  For  I  would  not,  breth 
ren,  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,  that  blindness 
in  part  is  happened  to  Israel  until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in."     Thus  will  the  Jews  be  preserved  as  a  distinct  people 
or  generation.     That  the  term  in  question  is  sometimes  used  in 
the  Bible  in  the  sense  of  species,  breed,  kind  and  race  may  be 
seen.      Ps.  26  :  6 ;  22  :  30  ;  16:5;    Prov.   33  :  12 ;  1  Peter 
2  :  9.     But  admitting  that  the  24th  chapter  relates  exclusively 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jews,  and  by  the  phrase,  this  genera 
tion,  we  are  to  understand  the  people  then  living  and  them  only, 
it  does  not  follow  that  Matt.  25  :  31-46  relates  to  the  same 
event.     This  forms  at  least  a  part  of  the  answer  to  the  question, 
"What  shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming  and  the  end  of  the 
world?"     As  Universalists  are  now  just  as  positive  that  this 
had  its  fulfillment  when  Titus  went  against  Jerusalem,  as  Mr. 
Ballou  and  others  were  once  that  it  referred  to  the  day  of  Pente 
cost,  we  will  here  notice  some  of  the  absurdities  involved  in  such 
a  reference. 

1.  "  When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory."  Yer.  81. 
This,  we  are  told,  took  place  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed; 
that  Christ  came  then  not  in  person,  but  in  power,  to  overthrow 
the  Jews.     See  Notes  on  Par.,  by  T.  Whittemore,  p.  347. 
This  power  says  to  them  on  his  right  hand,  "  Come  ye  blessed," 
&c.     For  "  I  (the  power)  was  an  hungered  and  ye  gave  me  no 
meat,"  &c.     "Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the 
least  of  these  my  brethren,"  i.  e.,  brethren  to  the  power  !     All 
must  see  the  absurdity  of  this. 

2.  "  And  oil  the  holy  angels  with  him:''     Ver.  31.     These, 
we   are  informed,  were  the  Roman  armies.      Guide,  p.    104. 
The  Saviour  calls  the  Roman  armies  "the  abomination  of  deso 
lation."     Chap.  24,  ver.  15.     But  Universalism  requires  that 


96  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  'polluted  idolatrous  Romans  be  considered  holy  angels  !  ! 
This  is  certainly  worse  than  Mr.  Ballou's  invention,  now  obso 
lete,  for  there  is  more  plausibility  in  asserting  that  the  apostles 
were  the  holy  angels  than  that  heathen  warriors  were. 

3.  "  Before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations."  Yer.  32. 
Says  Mr.  W.,  (Notes  on  Par.,  p.  334,)  "  Such  expressions  as 
in  all  the  world,  and  among  all  nations,  are  not  to  be  under 
stood  strictly."  But  this  same  writer,  and  others  like  him,  in 
considering  the  Abrahamic  promise,  assert  that  "  all  nations  " 
means  the  whole  of  Adam's  posterity  !  Since  it  is  asserted  that 
all  nations,  in  the  sense  of  the  text,  were  gathered  at  Jerusa 
lem,  let  us  inquire  who  composed  this  gathering  ?  To  answer 
this  we  have  only  to  learn  who  were  separated,  rewarded  and 
punished  at  that  time.  Of  this  separation  we  are  told  that  it 
was  "  between  the  faithful  disciples  and  the  persecutors  of  the 
church."  Notes  on  Par.,  p.  346.  Speaking  of  the  words  in 
verse  46,  this  author  asserts  that  they  are  not  to  be  understood 
to  teach  endless  punishment,  assigning  as  a  reason  "  the  parable 
in  which  they  occur  was  spoken  of  Jews,"  (p.  352,)  and  be 
lievers  were  those  rewarded  with  eternal  life.  Yer.  46,  p.  353. 
Jews  and  Christians,  then,  constitute  the  "  all  nations."  Ob 
serve,  those  who  were  separated  were  gathered  before  the  Son  of 
man.  Yer.  32.  But  was  there  any  such  gathering  at  Jerusa 
lem's  destruction  ?  But  few  Christians,  comparatively,  were  at 
Jerusalem  when  Titus  marched  against  it,  for  they  were  scattered 
all  over  the  Roman  empire  at  great  distances  from  that  point. 
To  some  of  the  many  places  where  Christian  churches  were 
located,  the  distances  from  Jerusalem  were  about  as  follows  : 
To  Rome  1,550  miles  ;  Corinth,  900 ;  Galatia,  600  ;  Ephcsus, 
650 ;  Philippi,  950 ;  Colosse,  550  ;  Thessalonica,  1,000. 
Now  is  there  anything  in  history,  have  Universalists  been  able 
to  produce  anything,  that  bears  the  faintest  resemblance  to 
Christians  being  gathered,  rewarded  and  punished  at  that  time  ? 
Nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  found.  Such  a  thought  contradicts 
the  Saviour,  who  instead  of  predicting  that  Christians  would  be 
gathered  then,  represents  it  as  a  time  of  flight  from  Judea 


Sec.  41.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


97 


Matt.  24  :  16-20.  And  Universalists  themselves,  to  serve 
another  purpose,  quote  Euscbius  to  show  that  Christians  fled 
from  Jerusalem  at  the  signs  of  approaching  danger,  and  thus 
escaped  "  to  Pella  and  other  places  beyond  the  river  Jordan." 
Notes  on  Par.,  p.  336.  A  strange  gathering  at  Jerusalem 

that ! 

4.  "  Then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory"     Ver. 
31.     How  the  power  sat  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory  in  Jeru 
salem's  overthrow  we  are  not  informed  ;  but  it  is  evident  that 
Christ  was  not  enthroned  there,  either  spiritually  or  literally. 

5.  "  And  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  a 
shepherd,"  &c.     Ver.  32.     Says  Mr    Rogers,  who  has  been 
counted  a  tall  man  in  the  order,  "  Every  grammarian  knows  that 
nations  is  the  antecedent  to  the  pronoun  them  in  this  place  ; 
nations,   then,   are  what  are  to   be   judged   and  separated." 
"  Are  our  opponents  willing  to  abide  a  literal  application  of  this 
text  to  a  judgment  in  eternity  ?     If  so,  we  shall  have  the  differ 
ent  nations  of  mankind   severed  from  each  other ;  and  whilst 
some,  en  masse,  are  taken  to  heaven,  others  will  be  driven  to 
hell."      Pro  and    Con,  p.  158.     Now  what  offeree  there  is 
here,  lies  with  all  its  weight  against  a  judgment  at  Jerusalem's 
destruction.     Were  nations  judged  there  and  severed  and  sent 
off  en  masse  ?     Mr.  Page,  another  great  man  in  the  order,  pre 
sents  an   entire  different  view.     He   says,    "  Shall   separate 
them"     Namely,  the  people  of  those  nations.     The  pronoun  in 
the  original  does   not  refer  immediately  to  the  word  nations,  it 
being  of  a  different  gender. ' '     Page  in  loco.     Who  shall  decide 
when  the  doctors  disagree  ? 

6.  "  The  devil  and  his  angels."     Ver.  41.     These,  we  are 
told,  "  were  the  leading  Jews  and  their  emissaries."     Notes  on 
Par.,  p.  350.     But  Mr.  Page  passes  it  with  this  remark  :   "  An 
allusion  to  the  contemporary  Jewish  opinions,  as  in  the  parable 
of  the  wheat  and  tares."     Page  in  loco.     Comment  is  unneces 
sary. 

7.  "  These  shall  go   away  into   everlasting  punishment." 
Yer.  46.     We  are  informed  that  everlasting  in  this  passage 


98 


TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

means  limited  duration,  and  that  the  Jews  suffered  everlasting 
punishment  in  the  sense  here  intended  in  their  destruction  by 
the  Romans.     We  are  told,  too,  that  all  punishment  is  for  the 
good  of  the  punished.     All  punishment  being  corrective,  "a 
remission  of  such  punishment  would  be  a  curse  instead  of  a 
mercy ;  but  a  just  punishment  is  as  essential  to  our  welfare  as 
anything  that  love  can  do."     Again,    -All  the  judgments  of 
which  the   scriptures  speak,  are  to  destroy  sin  and  reform  the 
sinner."      U.  111.  and  Def.,  pp.  248,  250.     So  it  seems  the 
Saviour  (Luke  19  :  41)  wept  over  the  Jews  in  view  of  the  pun 
ishment  they  were  about  to  experience  by  which  their  sins  would 
be  destroyed  and   they  reformed,  a  punishment  which  was  as 
essential  to  their  welfare  as  anything  that  love  could  do  !  !     How 
unkind.     Says  Dr.  A.  Clarke,    "  But  some  are  of  the  opinion 
that  this  punishment  shall  have  an  end;  this  is  as  likely  as  that 
the  glory  of  the  righteous  shall  have  an  end  ;  for  the  same  word 
is  used  to  express  the  duration  of  the  punishment,  as  is  used  to 
express  the  duration  of  the  state  of  glory.     I  have  seen  the  best 
things  that  have  been  written  in  favor  of  the  final  redemption  of 
damned  spirits ;  but  I  never  saw  an   answer  to  an  argument 
against  that  doctrine,  drawn  from  this  verse,  but  what  sound 
learning   and  criticism  should  be  ashamed   to   acknowledge." 
Clarke  in  loco.     So  much  from  Dr.  Clarke,  who,  it  is  believed, 
had  some  knowledge  of  language.     It  is  worthy  of  remark  here,' 
that  those  who  have  revived  the  long  since  exploded  doctrine  of 
annihilation,  in  order  to  sustain  it,  are  driven  to  the  same  quib 
bles  and  sophistries  to  limit  the  word  "  everlasting  "  that  Univer- 
salists   employ:  and,   as  might  be  expected,  the  effects  upon 
religion  and  morality  are  the  same. 

"  But  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  Yer.  46.  "  We 
consider  that  the  life  spoken  of  Matt.  25  :  46,  is  not  confined  to 
the  immortal  existence  into  which  the  human  race  are  to  be 
raised  after  natural  death,  but  is  that  spiritual  life  which  the 
believer  enjoys  in  this  state."  So  says  Mr.  Whittemore.  N. 
on  Par.,  p.  353.  Observe,  it  is  of  the  righteous  that  the 
Saviour  is  speaking,  and  all  must  admit  that  such  have  spiritual 


Sec.  41.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

"fe.  The  interpretation,  then,  amounts  to  this:  "The  spirit 
ually  alive  shall  be  made  spiritually  alive  when  Jerusalem  shall 
be  destroyed  by  the  Romans  !  "  Receive  it  who  can. 

Mr.  Whittemore  admits  that  Christ's  bodily  visit  again  to  the 
earth  is  taught,  1  Thess.  4  : 16.  Guide,  p.  36.  (Sec.  XXVI.) 
That  Mr.  W.  is  right  for  once,  is  evident ;  for  nothing  can  be 
more  obvious  than  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  same 
advent  he  treats  so  largely  upon  in  1  Cor.,  chap.  15.  As  Paul 
gives  a  description  of  Christ's  coming  in  his  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Thess.  1  :  7-10,  it  cannot  well  be  doubted  but  he  refers  to 
the  same  event  spoken  of  in  the  First,  as  the  epistles  were  both 
written  by  the  same  apostle,  addressed  to  the  same  people,  and 
both  treat  on  the  advent  of  Christ.  All  unite  in  referring 
1  Cor.  chap.  15  to  the  resurrection,  and  Mr.  Whittemore  admits 
that  1  Thess.  4:16  teaches  that  Christ  will  visit  the  earth  bodily 
at  that  time.  Let  us  now  collate  some  of  the  prominent  features 
as  given  by  Christ,  Matt.  25  :  31-46,  and  by  Paul,  1  Thess. 
4-2  Thess.  1 ;  1  Cor.  15 ;  and  see  if  it  is  not  strikingly  clear 
that  they  all  describe  the  same  event. 


MATT.  25  : 

1  COR.  15: 

1  THESS.  4: 

2  THESS.  1  : 

1.   "The  son  of 
man  shall  come." 

1.  "At  his  com 
ing." 

1.   "The    Lord 
himself    shall   de 
scend  from  heav 

1.  "The  Lord 
Jesus  shall  be  re 
vealed  from  heav 

en." 

en." 

2.  "All  the  holy 
angels  with  him." 

2.  "With     the 
voice  of  the  arch 
angel." 

2.  "With  his 
mighty  angels." 

3.  "  Before  him 
shall  be  gathered 

3.    "  The     dead 
shall  be  raised." 

3.  "  The  dead  in 
Christ    shall    rise 

all  nations." 

first." 

4.  "  The    last 
trump  ;  —  for    the 

4.   "With     the 
trump  of  God." 

trumpet      shall 

5.   "  In  his  glo 
ry." 

sound.. 

5.  "To  be  glori 
fied  in  his  saints." 

6.   "  These  shall 
go  away  into  ev 
erlasting     punish 
ment." 

6.  "Punished 
with  everlasting 
destruction  from 
the  presence  of  the 
Lord." 

7.    "  Come    ye 

7.  "And  so  shall 

blessed       of     my 

we   ever    be  with 

Father      inherit," 

the  Lord." 

&c.      "The  right 

eous  into  life  eter 

nal." 

UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

The  reader  must  see  that  these  texts  are  co-relative,  all 
teaching  the  same  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The 
Saviour,  in  Matt.  25,  refers  to  the  same  event  Paul  does  in 
1  Thess.  4,  with  this  difference  only.  Christ  speaks  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  while  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  right 
eous  only.  But  the  apostle  in  his  second  letter  treats  of  both 
classes,  as  is  seen  by  the  comparison  above.  We  learn  from  the 
words  of  Christ  and  the  apostle, 

1.  That  there  will  be  a  personal  advent  of  Christ. 

2.  That  holy  angels  shall  accompany  him. 

3.  That  the  trump  of  God,  the  last  trump,  shall  sound. 

4.  That  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  so  that  what 
ever  be  their  doom,  misery  or  bliss,  their  resurrection  bodies 
will  not  be  subject  to  decay,  but  will  endure  forever. 

5.  That  all   men,  the  wicked  and   the   righteous,  shall  be 
brought  before  Christ  the  judge. 

6.  That  the  wicked  shall  be  sentenced  to  everlasting  punish 
ment,  but  the  righteous  rewarded  with  life  eternal. 

Take  into  account  the  belief  of  those  addressed  by  our  Lord, 
the  points  of  resemblance  between  his  words  and  those  in  Paul's 
epistles,  admitted  by  Universalists  to  refer  to  Christ's  coming  at 
the  resurrection,  together  with  the  glaring  absurdity  of  asserting 
the  passage  to  be  fulfilled  at  Jerusalem's  destruction ;  take  these 
into  the  account,  we  say,  and  who  but  those  who  are  determined 
to  support  an  opinion  at  all  hazards,  but  will  admit  that  our 
Lord  here  teaches  a  future  judgment  connected  with,  or  subse 
quent  to,  the  resurrection. 

XLII.  And  /,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me"  John  12  :  32. 

The  importance  attached  to  this  text  to  prove  Universalism, 
may  be  seen  by  the  following  :  '<  Now  were  there  no  other  argu 
ment  in  favor  of  universal  salvation,  this  would  be  entirely  suffi 
cient  to  establish  the  doctrine."  U.  111.  and  Def.,  p.  267. 
"  This  certainly  assures  us  of  the  salvation  of  all  men."  Guide, 


Sec.  43.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  101 

p.  266.  Yes,  reader,  upon  the  strength  of  this  somewhat 
equivocal  text  alone,  these  men  assure  us  of  the  salvation  of  all 
men  in  eternity,  while  they  can  see  no  possible  evidence  of  any 
future  punishment  whatever  taught  in  the  Bible  !  All  are  not 
drawn  in  the  Universalist  sense  in  this  world,  for  wickedness 
and  misery  abound  to  an  alarming  extent,  and  Christ  might  say 
of  many  now,  as  anciently,  "  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me,  that  ye 
might  have  life."  John  5  :  40.  Remark,  the  Saviour  does  not 
say,  I  will  make  all  men  holy  and  happy  in  the  resurrection 
state;  but  simply,  "  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  Nothing 
is  said  in  the  text  concerning  the  character  or  condition  of  those 
who  shall  be  drawn.  That  all  men  will  be  drawn  to  Christ  in 
a  future  state  is  admitted,  yea,  contended  for  by  Christians,  for 
they  believe  the  apostle  when  he  says,  "  For  we  shall  all  stand 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ."  Horn.  14  : 10,  11,  also 
2  Cor.  5:10.  But  should  it  still  be  contended  that  this  draw 
ing  indicates  the  salvation  of  all  men,  then  we  reply  the  Saviour 
presents  a  very  different  view  when  speaking  of  the  same  event, 
namely,  his  being  "  lifted  up"  Hear  him.  "  And  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up.  That  WHOSOEVER  BELIEYETH  IN 
HIM  SHOULD  NOT  PERISH,  BUT  HAYE  EVERLAST 
ING  LIFE."  John  3  :  14,  15.  As  we  consider  the  Saviour 
competent  to  give  the  true  design  of  his  being  "  lifted  up"  we 
conclude  the  Universalist  construction  to  be  false.  It  remains 
a  fact,  however,  that  all,  whether  holy  or  unholy,  will  be  drawn 
to  Christ  in  the  judgment  to  receive  their  final  sentence." 

XLIII.  "  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of 
his  Father,  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  he  shall  reward  every 
man  according  to  his  works.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be 
some  standing  here,  which  shall  not  taste  death,  till  they  see 
the  Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom."  Matt.  16  :  27,  28. 

This  passage,  and  especially  the  28th  verse,  has  been  consid 
ered  a  kind  of  lever  by  which  to  overturn  every  argument 


102  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

brought  in  favor  of  the  personal  advent  and  of  future  judgment, 
and  to  tumble  those  scriptures  urged  in  support  of  these  doctrines 
into  Jerusalem's  destruction.     Since   some  commentators  have 
admitted  it,  and  Universalists  stoutly  contend  that  that  event  is 
to  be  considered  a  coming  of  Christ,  we  have  been  somewhat 
careful  in  examining  the  scriptures  to  see  if  that  is  the  fact,  and 
have  come   to  the   conclusion  that  the   coming  of  the  Roman 
army  against  that  city  is  never   called  the   coming  of    Christ. 
Take  the  27th  verse,  now  under  consideration,  and  is  there  any 
thing  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Jews  by  the  Romans,  bearing  the 
least  resemblance  to  this  description  ?     Whoever  saw,  or  imag 
ined  he  saw,  the  Son  of  man  or  his  angels  at  that  time  ?     Jose- 
phus  was  present,  and  has  transmitted  to  us  a  number  of  prodigies 
which  happened ;    but  he  says  nothing  about  the  coming  of 
Christ.     Then  what  in  that  event  answers  to  the  angels  called 
(Matt.  25:31)  holy  angels?     Were  the  fierce,  polluted  and 
idolatrous  Roman  soldiers  these   holy  angels  V     Preposterous  ! 
It  is  false,  too,  that  every  man  was  rewarded   according  to  his 
works,  as  the  text  asserts,  when  the  Romans  sacked  Jerusalem 
and  butchered  and  enslaved  the  Jews  —  for  but  a  fraction  of  the 
human   race  were   there  —  and   those  who  were  involved  in  the 
siege  did  not  receive   according  to  their  works,  for  many  of  the 
women  and  infants  were  the  greatest  sufferers.     So  far  from  the 
truth  is  it  that  Christ  came  at  that  time,  that  in  predicting  that 
event  (Matt.  24  :  23)  he  faithfully  warned  his  disciples  against 
heeding  such  a  doctrine.     Hear  him.      "  Then  (at  the  destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem),  if  any  man  shall  say  unto  you,  Lo  !  here  is 
Christ,  or  there,  BELIEVE  IT  JS7OT."     What  folly  to  talk  of 
Christ's  coming  to  destroy  Jerusalem  !     The  truth  is,  the  27th 
verse  teaches  the  second  personal  advent  of  Christ,  when  he 
shall  judge  the  world  in  righteousness ;  and  the  28th  refers  to 
the  model  of  that  personal  advent  witnessed  by  Peter,  James 
and  John  upon  the  mount,  recorded  in  the  following  verses  in 
the  next  chapter.     The  end  of  a  chapter  does  not  always  end  a 
subject ;  for  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  dividing  the  Bible 


SeC.  43.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  103 

into  chapters  and  verses  was  not  the  work  of  the  inspired 
writers,  but  is  comparatively  a  modern  thing,  for  convenience 
sake.  The  last  two  verses  of  chap.  16,  and  the  first  five  of 
chap.  17,  when  connected  as  they  should  be,  read  as  follows : 
"  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
with  his  angels ;  and  then  shall  he  reward  every  man  according 
to  his  works.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be  some  standing 
here  which  shall  not  taste  of  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man 
coming  in  his  kingdom.  And  after  six  days,  Jesus  taketh  Peter 
James,  and  John  his  brother,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  an 
high  mountain  apart,  and  was  transfigured  before  them  :  and  his 
face  did  shine  as  the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  as  white  as  light. 
And  behold,  there  appeared  unto  them  Moses  and  Elias  talking 
with  him.  Then  answered  Peter  and  said  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  it 
is  good  for  us  to  be  here  :  if  thou  wilt,  let  us  make  here  three 
tabernacles ;  one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elias. 
While  he  yet  spake,  behold,  a  bright  cloud  overshadowed  them : 
and  behold,  a  voice  out  of  the  cloud,  which  said,  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  :  hear  ye  him." 

Just  examine  in  connection  with  this  what  Peter,  who  was  an 
eye  witness  of  this  scene,  says  in  the  following :  "  For  we  have 
not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables,  when  we  made  known 
unto  you  the  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but 
were  eye  witnesses  of  his  majesty.  For  he  received  from  God 
the  Father  honor  and  glory,  when  there  came  such  a  voice  to 
him  from  the  excellent  glory,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased.  And  this  voice  which  came  from  heaven  we 
heard,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount."  (Sec. 
XLIV.) 

Thus  we  have  the  prediction,  its  accomplishment,  and  remarks 
by  one  who  witnessed  the  whole,  and  he  calls  the  transfigura 
tion,  "  The  power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
This,  then,  and  not  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  what  the 
Saviour  is  speaking  of  when  he  says,  "  There  be  some  standing 
here,  which  shall  not  taste  death  till  they  see  the  Son  of  man 


104  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

coming  in  his  kingdom."  Peter,  James  and  John  were  present 
at  that  time,  and  after  six  days  they  were  upon  the  mount  and 
witnessed  this  presentation  of  Christ's  final  coming.  There  are 
five  different  comings  of  Christ  named  in  the  New  Testament ; 

1.  His  personal  advent  in  the  flesh.     John  1  : 11-14. 

2.  His  spiritual  coming  to  comfort  and  sustain  his  followers. 
John  14  : 18-23. 

3.  His  transfiguration  Upon  the  mount,  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  a  model  of  his  second  personal  advent. 

4.  His  providential    coming,   named  Rev.  2:5,  to  punish 
apostate  churches. 

5.  His  final  and  personal  advent  to  raise  the  dead  and  judge 
the  world.     This  is  usually  called  his  second  advent,  because  it 
is  his  second  personal  coming.     Mr.  Whittemore  in  his  Guide, 
p.  36,  bears  testimony  to  this  advent.     (Sec.  XXVI.) 

We  refer  the  reader  to  a  few  out  of  the  many  passages  where 
this  is  taught :  1  Tbess.  4  : 16  ;  2  Thess.  1  :  7-10  ;  1  Cor. 
15  :  23  ;  Phil.  3  :  20,  21  ;  Matt.  25  :  31-46 ;  Acts  17  :  31 ; 
2  Cor.  5  :  10  ;  Rom.  2  :  16.  Collate  John  14  :  3  with  Acts  1:11. 
In  this  last  named  text  it  is  declared  that,  "This  same  Jesus  which 
is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner 
as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven."  With  this  text  before 
him,  to  say  nothing  of  many  others,  what  man  with  honest 
purpose  can  deny  that  a  second  personal  advent  of  Christ  is 
taught  in  the  Bible  ? 

XLIV.  "  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  gone 
over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come"  Matt. 
10:23. 

11  That  this  passage  has  no  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem,  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 

"  1.  This  language  was  addressed  to  the  apostles,  according  to 
Dr.  Carpenter's  Gospel  Harmony,  not  more  than  six  months 
before  the  crucifixion. 

"  2.  The  apostles  finished  their  circuit  among  the  cities  of 
Israel,  and  returned  to  their  Lord  before  the  crucifixion. 


Sec.  45.]      UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.  105 

"  3.  Before  the  ascension  of  Christ,  they  received  an  enlarged 
commission,  and  went  out  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations  • 
to  every  creature.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  in  less  than  one 
year  from  the  time  when  their  Lord  said,  "  Ye  shall  not  have 
gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come," 
they  had  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel,  and  received  a  new  com 
mission  —  authority  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles.  The  coming, 
then,  here  referred  to,  either  took  place  within  one  year,  or 
Christ  must  have  uttered  a  false  prediction.  Take  which  horn 
of  dilemma  you  please. 

"4.  Besides,  Jerusalem  was  not  destroyed  till  at  least  thirty- 
seven  years  after  the  apostles  received  their  commission  to  preach 
in  the  cities  of  Israel.  But  long  before  this  period  had  elapsed, 
the  apostles  had  gone  over  the  field  which  their  first  commis 
sion  contemplated,  returned  and  received  authority  to  preach  to 
the  Gentiles ;  they  had  spread  the  gospel  all  over  the  eastern 
world,  and  with  the  exception  of  John,  had  all  gone  to  the 
rewards  of  the  faithful."  fiussell. 

The  coming  of  Christ,  named  2  Peter  1:  16-18,  took  place 
within  a  few  weeks  after  the  apostles  were  sent  out,  and  before 
they  had  gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel,  and  to  that  event  he 
doubtless  refers  in  the  text.  See  Sec.  XLIII. 

XLV.  "  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjec 
tion  :  lest  that  by  any  means,  when  I  have  preached  to  others, 
I  my  self  should  be  a  castaway."  1  Cor.  9  :  27. 

Speaking  of  the  competitors  in  the  Grecian  games,  the  apostle 
says  :  ' '  Now  they  do  it  to  obtain  a  corruptible  crown ;  but  we 
an  incorruptible."  That  Paul  has  his  eye  on  the  immortal 
prize,  and  expresses  a  sense  of  danger,  must  be  obvious  to  all 
candid  minds.  In  the  Olympic  games,  to  which  reference  is 
made,  the  prize  was  at  the  end  of  the  race,  and  in  order  to 
secure  it,  the  race  must  be  performed  according  to  law,  or  the 
judge  did  not  award  the  crown.  So  in  the  Christian  race,  the 
iucorrnptible  crown  of  glory  is  at  the  end,  and  the  race  must  be 
7 


106  UNIVERSALISM    NOT  OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

according  to  law ;  hence  says  the  apostle,  (ver.  24,)  "  So  run, 
that  ye  may  obtain."  But  if  the  Universalist  theory  be  correct, 
all  are  sure  of  the  immortal  prize  whether  they  run  or  not,  and 
the  man  who  blasphemes  God  with  his  latest  breath,  is  as  surely 
crowned  as  the  apostle.  Examine  well  the  text  and  context  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  apostle's  course  is  strikingly  at  variance 
with  Universalist  teachings. 

XL VI.  "  Because  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not 
executed  speedily,  therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is 
fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil"  Eccl.  8  :  11. 

Universalism  declares  that  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is 
executed  speedily,  that  it  is  not  delayed ;  while  the  Bible  asserts 
that  it  "  is  not  speedily  executed."  Which  shall  we  believe, 
Universalism  or  the  Bible  ?  Notwithstanding  this  text  stands 
directly  opposed  to  a  prominent  feature  of  their  theory,  yet  these 
men  of  many  inventions  attempt  to  turn  it  against  evangelical 
truth,  because  of  the  abuse  of  the  long-suffering  named  in  the 
passage,  and  assert  that  our  views  are  conducive  to  sin  because 
we  teach  that  its  punishment  is  far  off  in  the  future.  They  are 
wont  to  discourse  in  this  wise  :  "  The  sentiment  which  defers  all 
punishment  to  another  world  is  defective,  because  it  provides  a 
way  of  escape.  It  says  :  '  Go  on  in  sin  ;  live  in  it  till  the  age 
of  seventy,  eighty  or  ninety ;  curse  and  blaspheme  God ;  op 
press  and  wrong  the  widow  ;  ruin  unprotected  innocence  ;  stain 
your  hands  in  human  blood  ;  but  repent  before  you  die,  and  you 
escape  all  punishment ;  you  go  immediately  to  glory.  Not  only 
so  —  it  makes  man  a  gainer  by  sin  ;  for  the  same  sentiment 
says  —  the  wicked  are  happier  in  this  world  than  the  good.' 
Again :  Suppose  our  laws  were  established  on  this  principle, 
and  that  transgressors  were  not  called  to  an  account,  till  they 
arrive  at  the  age  of  fifty  or  sixty ;  that  all  this  time  they  are 
permitted  to  go  on  committing  all  manner  of  crimes ;  should  we 
not  call  this  ruinous  policy  ?  '  "  U.  Ill  and  Def.,  p.  217. 

Upon  this  we  venture  to  say,  that  more  misrepresentation 


SeC.  46.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  107 

could  not  be  crowded  into  so  small  a  space.  We  are  kindly 
informed  what  other  sentiments  say  ;  now  let  us  hear  what  Uni- 
versalisni  says.  It  says,  "Go  on  in  sin  ;  live  in  it  till  the  age 
of  seventy,  eighty  or  ninety ;  curse  and  blaspheme  God ;  op 
press  and  wrong  the  widow ;  ruin  unprotected  innocence  ;  stain 
your  hands  in  human  blood ;  never  repent  before  you  die  ;  blas 
pheme  God  with  your  latest  breath ;  fall  either  by  your  own 
hand,  or  in  the  act  of  destroying  a  fellow  man,  and  at  the  next 
conscious  existence  you  shall  be  equal  unto  the  angels." 

Surely  this  must  be  a  powerful  dyke  raised  against  the  floods 
of  corruption  flowing  from  depraved  hearts  !  But  we  are  com 
plained  of  because  we  put  punishment  for  sin  far  off  into  the 
future,  and  thus  men  are  led  to  think  they  can  commit  sin  with 
impunity.  We  answer,  Christian  ministers  teach  punishment 
beyond  the  grave  for  sin,  because  the  Bible  and  reason  so  teach ; 
but  are  they  in  the  habit,  as  is  represented,  of  assuring  their 
hearers  that  this  punishment  is  far  off?  Speak,  ye  hundreds  of 
thousands  who  sit  under  their  ministry.  Do  they  not  constantly 
proclaim  the  uncertainty  of  life,  and  the  possibility  of  their 
hearers  being  cut  down  by  death  at  any  moment ;  that  they  may 
not  boast  themselves  of  the  morrow,  for  they  know  not  what  a  day 
may  bring  forth  ?  Do  they  not  announce  to  the  wicked  that  an 
awful  eternity  awaits  them  every  moment,  and  that  in  view  of  it 
they  should  now  repent  and  lead  a  holy  life  ?  Do  they  not  apprise 
them  of  the  fact  that  probation  may  close  with  individuals  even 
before  death,  by  the  dethronement  of  reason  or  the  departure  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Most  assuredly  they,  do  as  all  know.  And  is 
this  saying  to  men,  go  on  in  sin  till  the  age  of  seventy,  eighty 
or  ninety  years,  and  then  repent  and  escape  punishment  ?  Never 
was  there  a  charge  more  false  than  this.  Another  is,  that  it 
makes  a  man  a  gainer  by  sin  ;  and  that  the  wicked  are  happier 
in  this  world  than  the  good.  (Sec.  LXIII.)  But  do  not  Chris, 
tian  pulpits  thunder  as  loudly  in  proclaiming  the  evil  conse- 


108  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

quences  of  sin  in  this  life,  as  do  the  pulpits  of  Universalists  ? 
From  them  is  heard  constantly  the  declaration  to  sinners,  that 

"  In  pain  you  travel  all  your  days, 
To  reap  eternal  woe." 

Christian  ministers,  however,  do  not  assure  their  hearers  that 
there  are  absolutely  no  pleasures  in  sin,  for  that  would  not  only 
be  travelling  beyond  the  scriptures,  (Heb.  11  :  25  ;  2  Thess. 
2  :12  ;  Prov.  4  :  16)  ;  but  the  experience  of  every  sinner  would 
contradict  it.  Hence  a  part  of  their  labor  is  to  point  out  their 
short-lived,  delusive  and  ruinous  character,  that  they  may  be 
avoided,  and  to  show  men  that  when  compared  with  the  pleas 
ures  of  righteousnesss,  they  are  as  nothing,  and  that  on  the 
whole  it  is  an  evil  and  bitter  thing  to  sin  against  God.  Univer 
salists  claim  that  their  system  is  pre-eminently  reformatory, 
because  it  teaches  that  the  penalty  of  sin  visits  the  transgressor 
immediately.  This  is  boasted  of  as  its  great  moral  power. 
That  it  is  a  perfect  failure  in  this  respect  is  known  to  all  who 
have  witnessed  its  operations.  (Sec.  CXXXVII.)  It  strikes  us 
that  the  character  of  the  penalty  has  something  to  do  with  de- 
tering  men  from  crime.  Suppose  a  law  enacted  against  theft, 
fornication  or  drunkenness,  the  penalty  of  which  is  a  soft  loving 
rap  upon  the  ear,  to  be  inflicted  immediately  on  the  commission 
of  the  crime,  and  that,  too,  all  for  the  good  of  the  man  who 
incurs  the  penalty ;  would  such  a  penalty  be  likely  to  deter  men 
from  the  commission  of  these  crimes  merely  because  there  is  no 
escaping  it  ?  Now  this  is  an  illustration  of  the  Universalist 
doctrine  of  the  penalty  for  sin.  Says  Mr.  Skinner  :  "  A  just  pun 
ishment  is  as  essential  for  our  welfare,  as  anything  that  love  can 
do."  17.  111.  and  Def.,  p.  250.  So  punishment  is  not  a  curse, 
but  a  blessing  !  Thus  God  is  made  to  say  to  the  wicked,  "  Re 
frain  from  sin,  for  as  sure  as  you  commit  it  I  will  bless  you." 
Who  can  wonder  that  there  is  claimed  for  this  system  a  great 
reformatory  power !  But  it  is  said  by  the  advocates  of  this 
By  stem,  that  the  punishment  for  which  they  contend  is  no  light 


SeC.  46.]      UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.  109 

affair,  but  is  much  to  be  dreaded  by  the  sinner.  At  this  point 
it  may  be  proper  to  inquire,  in  what  does  the  punishment  for  a 
violation  of  God's  moral  law  consist  ?  While  we  are  told  with 
much  assurance  that  men  are  punished  all  their  sins  deserve  in 
this  world,  we  are  somewhat  at  a  loss  to  learn  from  Universalist 
authors  how  this  punishment  is  inflicted.  There  seems  to  be  a 
strange  confounding  of  things  upon  this  subject.  In  the  Trum 
pet,  No.  1089,  is  the  following  question  proposed.  "  If,  as 
Universalists  contend,  a  guilty  conscience  constitutes  the  only 
punishment  for  sin,  how  can  those  with  a  seared  conscience  be 
adequately  punished  in  the  present  life  ?  "  Mr.  Whittemore 
replies,  "  Our  querist  has  based  his  question  on  a  false  view  of 
the  sentiments  of  Universalists.  How  did  he  learn  that  they 
believed  that  a  guilty  conscience  constitutes  the  only  punishment 
for  sin  in  this  life  ?  Has  he  learned  it  from  them  or  from  their 
enemies?  Suffer  us  to  say,  we  do  not  believe  that  such  an 
opinion  is  entertained  by  any  them.  A  guilty  conscience  is  no 
desirable  companion  on  the  journey  of  life,  and  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  punishment  of  guilt ;  but  no  one  affirms  that  it  is 
the  only  punishment.  Are  there  not  many  other  punishments  ? 
Poverty,  degradation,  disease  brought  on  by  sin,  the  loss  of  con 
fidence  and  respect  of  our  fellow  creatures,  imprisonments,  &c., 
&c.,  &c.,  are  not  all  these  the  punishments  of  sin  in  this  life  ?" 
But  Mr.  Witherell,  who,  it  seems,  we  must  consider  good 
authority  in  the  order,  (Sec.  IV.)  informs  us  that  the  hell 
Universalists  believe  in  consists  in  mental  sufferings,  (p.  11,) 
and  who  has  not  heard  from  Universalists  of  the  hell  of  con 
science  ? 

We  purpose  now  to  take  a  view  of  human  suffering  arising 
from  different  sources,  and  see  if  we  can  possibly  conceive  of  the 
sinner  as  adequately  punished  in  this  life,  for  his  actual  sins 
against  God.  Let  us  consider  men  first,  as  physical  beings. 
That  men  who  violate  the  laws  of  their  physical  nature  suffer,  is 
true ;  but  is  this  the  method  God  takes  to  punish  sin  ?  Is 
physical  suffering  a  sure  indication  of  actual  sin  against  God  ? 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Wicked  men  may,  and  often  do  violate  the  laws  of  their  physical 
and  organic  nature  while  sinning  against  God,  and  suffer  as  a 
consequence.     The  pious,  too,  often  violate  these  laws,  in  doing 
good  while  influenced  by  the  purest  of  motives,  and  of  course 
incur  no  guilt.     Other  circumstances  being  equal,  the  man  who 
breaks  a  limb  in  the  act  of  taking  life,  experiences  no  more  pain 
than  the  man  who  does  the  same  thing  in  the  act  of  saving  life. 
A  vast  amount  of  physical  disease  comes  upon  the  human  family 
independent  of  their  own  agency.     The  wickedness  and  ignor 
ance  of  parents  often  entails  disease  upon  their  innocent  and 
virtuous  offspring ;  and  little  children,  incapable  of  moral  action, 
are    often  subjects    of  extreme  suffering   for  months  together. 
Physical  suffering  is  the  result  of  a  violation  of  physical  laws, 
and  these  may  be  violated  either  with  or  without  our  own  agency. 
Universalists  very  generally  adopt  a  deceptive  mode  of  reasoning 
upon  this  subject,  by  confounding  the  mere  natural  effects  of  sin 
with  its  punishment.     (Sec.  XLIX. )    The  Jews  rejected  Christ, 
the  true  light,  and  greater  darkness  came  upon  them.     This 
was  the  natural  effect,  but  not  the  punishment  for  this  sin.     Al 
though  they  thus  deceive  the  unthinking,  by  thus  confounding 
things,  yet  to  serve  their  purpose  at  times  they  are  obliged  to 
admit  the  distinction  ;  for  they  tell  us  that  the  Jews  were  pun 
ished  for  rejecting   Christ  nearly  forty  years  after,  when  Jeru 
salem  was  destroyed.     If,  as  has  been  asserted,  sin  is  its  own 
punishment,   then   all  other   punishments,    whether  human  or 
divine,  are  unjust  and  cruel ;  for  if  all  have  been  punished,  why 
should  they  be  re-punished  ?     Mankind,  in  practice,  universally 
reject  the  idea  that  sin  punishes  itself.      Every  parent  who 
applies  the  rod  to  a  child  for  a  fault,  rejects  it.     Every  civil 
magistrate,  in  passing  sentence  upon  a  criminal,  rejects  it.     God 
himself,  as  often  as  he  punishes  transgressors,  rejects  it ;    and 
thus  makes  the  distinction  for  which  we  contend.     We  observe, 
then,  a  wide  difference  between  suffering  for  sin,  and  suffering 
from  the  effects  of  sin.     The  innocent  may  suffer  from  the  effects 
of  sin,  or  in  consequence  of  it ;  while  none  but  the  guilty,  or  the 


SeC.  46.]  UNIVEKSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  Ill 

one  who  takes  the  place  of  the  guilty,  as  did  the  Saviour, 
(1  Pet.  3  :  18,)  can  suffer  for  sin.  What  folly,  then,  to  account 
physical  suffering  the  penalty  of  God's  law  against  actual  sin, 
since  the  innocent  experience  it  as  well  as  the  guilty.  Man  is  a 
social  being.  He  possesses  that  nature  and  those  feelings, 
which  render  him  capable  of  society.  Shall  we  look  in  this 
direction  for  God's  penalties  against  sin  ?  In  the  social  relations 
are  the  righteous  always  exalted,  and  are  the  wicked  always  cast 
down?  A  competency  of  worldly  substance  is  desirable  in 
human  society  ;  but  is  this  secured  only  to  the  good  ?  Thou 
sands  of  the  purest  spirits  upon  earth  have  been  found  in  pov 
erty's  vale,  suffering  for  the  necessaries  of  life,  while  some  of 
the  wicked  have  prospered  in  the  world,  and  have  had  more  than 
a  reasonable  heart  could  wish.  Ps.  73  :  7.  Marriage  forms  an 
important  relation  in  society ;  but  do  the  good  always  derive 
comfort  from  this  relation,  and  does  it  always  prove  an  evil  to 
the  wicked  ?  We  see  the  pious  and  affectionate  wife,  suffering 
by  the  conduct  of  a  perfidious,  brutal,  and  drunken  husband ; 
while  the  faithful,  indulgent,  and  pious  husband,  is  tormented 
all  his  days  with  a  faithless,  brawling,  and  discontented  wife ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  irreligious  find  much  com 
fort  in  the  conjugal  relation.  Pious  parents  often  suffer  by  the 
wickedness  of  their  children,  and  pious  children  are  often  afflicted 
by  the  ungodliness  of  parents  ;  while  some  of  the  wicked  derive 
comfort  from  these  relations. 

We  might  name  other  things  in  the  social  state  where  the 
same  inequality  exists ;  but  enough  has  been  presented  to  show 
that  not  only  the  wicked,  but  the  righteous  suffer  in  their  social 
relations,  which  establishes  the  point  that  these  sufferings  can 
not  be  God's  penalty  against  sin  ;  for  no  innocent  person  will 
suffer  that.  As  it  regards  the  providences  of  God, —  so  dark 
and  mysterious  are  many  of  them,  that  it  is  not  always  safe  to 
judge  of  a  man's  moral  condition  by  what  we  witness  of  God's 
dealings  with  him  in  this  life.  Job's  friends  ran  into  this  error, 
and  supposed  he  must  have  been  a  very  wicked  man,  or  he 


112  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

would  not  have  suffered  as  he  did  ;  when,  in  fact,  he  was  pre 
eminently  holy.  The  truth  is,  this  is  a  state  of  probation,  and 
not  of  strict  recompense  ;  hence  the  inequality  apparent  in  the 
Divine  administration  in  this  world.  God  causes  his  sun  to 
shine  not  merely  upon  the  good,  but  upon  the  evil  also,  and  his 
rain  descends  upon  the  unjust  as  well  as  the  just.  Matt.  5  :  45. 
It  is  not  in  man's  social  relations,  then,  that  we  arc  to  look  for 
the  infliction  of  God's  penalties  against  sin ;  for  observation, 
experience,  and  the  word  of  God  unite  in  pressing  upon  us  the 
fact  that  some  wicked  persons  prosper  in  these  relations,  while 
others  who  are  pious  suffer  in  them.  Furthermore,  such  has 
been  the  corrupt  state  of  the  world,  as  its  history  abundantly 
shows,  that  true  piety  has  often  called  down  upon  its  possessor 
all  manner  of  cruel  sufferings  by  imprisonment,  rack,  and  other 
wise,  while  many  of  the  wicked  have  escaped  such  visitations. 

Man  possesses  conscience,  or,  as  it  has  been  denominated, 
"  moral  sense."  Does  he  suffer  from  this  source  all  the  penalty 
of  the  moral  law  in  this  life  ?  Some  assert  that  he  does.  This 
we  deny,  and  submit  the  following,  which  might  be  greatly  ex 
tended,  to  show  the  folly  of  such  an  assumption.  It  is  a  funda 
mental  principle  of  modern  Universalism,  that  no  man  escapes 
any  just  punishment  for  sin;  and  of  course  if  the  punishment 
for  sin  is  confined  to  the  conscience  in  this  life,  and  if  there  be 
a  just  administration,  every  one  must  be  punished  in  exact  pro 
portion  to  his  crimes.  To  show  that  this  is  impossible,  let  us 
suppose  two  cases.  A  man  becomes  acquainted  with  the  fact 
that  a  neighbor  has  a  large  sum  of  money,  and  resolves  on  mur 
dering  him  to  secure  it.  He  follows  him  into  a  dark  avenue, 
and  in  fifteen  minutes  from  the  time  he  formed  the  purpose,  his 
neighbor  is  a  dying  man,  and  the  murderer  himself  senseless  by 
his  side,  in  consequence  of  a  death  shot  given  in  self-defence  by 
his  murdered  victim.  Now,  according  to  the  theory  we  oppose, 
that  murderer  could  have  suffered  but  fifteen  minutes  in  his 
conscience,  if  we  date  his  crime  back  to  the  time  he  formed  the 
intention ;  and  when  we  take  into  the  account  the  excitement 


Sec.  46.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  113 

connected  with  such  an  act,  we  cannot  conceive  of  very  acute 
suffering  during  that  short  period. 

Another  case.  A  man  has  the  same  opportunity,  forms  the 
same  purpose,  and  in  the  same  space  of  time  murders  his  neigh 
bor,  but  secures  the  money,  escapes  himself,  and  survives  his 
murdered  victim  twenty  years ;  and  not  only  suffers  from  con 
science,  but  suspicion  is  fixed  upon  him  as  the  murderer  :  he  is 
arrested,  examined,  thrown  into  jail  for  six  months  or  more  to 
await  the  sitting  of  the  court,  has  his  trial,  and  undergoes  all 
the  fearful  apprehensions  of  a  death  upon  the  gallows.  Proof, 
however,  fails,  and  he  is  cleared  by  the  court,  but  is  not  cleared 
from  the  just  suspicions  of  the  entire  community.  In  these  two 
cases  the  crimes  are  equal,  but  are  the  punishments  equal? 
Does  the  man  who  lives  twenty  years  after  the  act  of  murder, 
suffer  no  more  in  his  conscience  than  the  one  who  dies  in  the 
act? 

If  we  look  this  subject  in  the  face,  we  shall  see  most  clearly 
that  either  God's  ways  are  not  equal,  or  else  that  there  is  future 
punishment,  and  the  Universalist  notion  is  false.  And  then,  as 
if  to  cap  the  climax  of  absurdity,  this  dogma  teaches  that  the 
man  who  dies  in  the  murderous  act  becomes  as  the  angels  of 
God  in  heaven  ;  while  the  one  who  survives,  yet  no  more  guilty, 
suffers  a  Universalist  hell  in  this  world  for  twenty  years  !  That 
the  moral  sensibilities  become  blunted  by  a  continual  course  of 
sin,  so  that  there  is  less  suffering  from  conscience  as  the  sinner 
advances  in  crime,  is  confirmed  by  experience,  common  observa 
tion,  and  the  Bible.  Indeed,  all  writers  upon  moral  science  have 
taken  this  view.  The  following  is  from  Wayland  :  "  The  man 
who  habitually  violates  his  conscience,  not  only  is-more  feebly 
impelled  to  do  right,  but  he  becomes  less  sensible  to  the  pain  of 
doing  wrong.  A  child  feels  poignant  remorse  after  the  first  act 
of  pilfering.  Let  the  habit  of  dishonesty  be  formed,  and  he  will 
become  so  hackneyed  in  sin,  that  he  will  perpetrate  robbery  with 
no  other  feeling  than  that  of  mere  fear  of  detection.  The  first 
oath  almost  palsies  the  tongue  of  the  stripling.  It  requires  but 


114  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

a  few  months,  however,  to  transform  him  into  the  bold  and 
thoughtless  blasphemer.  The  murderer,  after  the  death  of  his 
first  victim,  is  agitated  with  all  the  horrors  of  guilt.  He  may, 
however,  pursue  his  trade  of  blood  until  he  have  no  more  feeling 
for  man,  than  the  butcher  for  the  animal  which  he  slaughters. 
Burk,  who  was  in  the  habit  of  murdering  men,  for  the  purpose  of 
selling  their  bodies  to  the  surgeons  for  dissection,  confessed  this 
of  himself."  Moral  Science,  p.  77. 

Speaking  of  this  influence  of  sin,  Paul  declares  of  some  that 
their  consciences  were  "  seared  with  a  hot  iron."  1  Tim.  4  :  2. 
Conscience  is  not,  as  some  assert,  the  unerring  voice  of  God,  but 
is  right  or  wrong,  according  as  the  moral  judgment  and  moral 
sense  are  right  or  wrong.  As  to  mental  suffering,  we  hazard  noth 
ing  in  saying  that  the  man  of  tender  sympathy,  who  by  mistake  or 
accident  takes  the  life  of  a  fellow  being,  suffers  a  hundred  fold 
more,  mentally,  than  the  hardened  wretch  like  Burk,  who  deliber 
ately  murders  a  man  for  a  few  paltry  dollars.  Since,  then,  it  is  an 
established  fact  that  suffering  from  this  source  in  this  life  is  so 
far  from  increasing  with  crime  that  it  actually  diminishes,  it  can 
not  be  the  way  in  which  a  righteous  moral  governor  punishes  sin. 
The  trouble  experienced  by  the  sinner  from  conscience,  is  caused 
by  her  remonstrance,  under  the  Spirit  of  God,  discovering  to 
him  his  guilt,  and  pointing  him  to  the  law,  with  its  fearful 
penalty.  This  conscience  continues  to  do  most  faithfully  until 
the  Spirit  is  grieved,  and  she  is  hushed  by  repeated  acts  of  sin 
and  rebellion  against  God,  and  the  sinner  becomes  past  feeling, 
(Eph.  4  : 19,)  and  is  left  to  believe  a  lie  that  he  might  be 
damned,  because  he  believed  not  the  truth,  but  "  had  pleasure 
in  unrighteousness."  2  Thess.  2  :  12.  The  sufferings  experi 
enced  here  may  be  regarded  as  the  consequences  of  sin,  but  not, 
strictly  as  its  penalty.  Let  us  illustrate.  The  penalty 
for  highway  robbery,  we  will  say,  is  hard  labor  in  the  state 
prison  for  thirty  years.  A  man  commits  this  crime,  is  arrested, 
examined,  and  cast  into  the  common  jail  to  await  his  trial,  which 
is  to  take  place  in  six  months.  Satisfied  that  his  guilt  must 


Sec.  46.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  115 

appear,  and  that  naught  but  the  dread  penalty  awaits  him,  his 
mental  sufferings  are  great.  He  is  deprived,  too,  of  his  liberty, 
social  enjoyments,  and  bodily  health,  by  his  incarceration.  Now 
we  ask,  are  these  sufferings  of  the  prisoner  to  be  regarded  as  the 
penalty  of  the  law  against  robbery  ?  By  no  means.  The  court 
is  not  authorized  to  abate  six  months  of  the  penalty,  in  consid 
eration  of  his  having  been  six  months  in  the  common  jail.  Suf 
fering  in  the  jail  for  six  months  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  the 
crime,  but  not  the  penalty,  as  all  will  see.  So  the  sinner  against 
God  often  suffers  in  this  world  physically,  socially,  and  men 
tally,  in  consequence  of  his  sins ;  but  reason  and  scripture  both 
unite  in  proclaiming  the  fact  that  there  is  punishment  after  death 
for  the  ungodly. 

The  doctrine  of  future  punishment  has  been  called,  by  way  of 
reproach,  a  heathenish  doctrine.  That  not  only  those  nations 
who  have  been  favored  with  the  Scriptures,  but  those  who  have 
been  destitute  of  them  have  believed  in  future  retributions,  in 
some  form,  is  true  ;  and  this,  so  far  from  forming  an  objection  to 
the  doctrine,  is  but  another  evidence  of  its  truthfulness.  No 
candid  mind  acquainted  with  human  affairs,  can  believe  for  a  mo 
ment  that  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  are  adequately  rewarded 
and  punished  in  this  life  ;  and  it  is  this  common  sense  view  which 
carries  the  mind  of  man  to  the  future  world,  where  this  will  take 
place.  This  furnishes  a  reason  why  this  doctrine  has  obtained  so 
generally,  even  where  the  Bible  is  not  known.  It  will  be  seen 
by  the  candid  reader,  we  think,  from  the  few  thoughts  here  pre 
sented,  that  men  do  not  receive  the  penalty  of  God's  law  against 
sin  in  either  their  physical,  social,  or  mental  sufferings  in  this 
world,  or  in  all  of  them  put  together.  It  remains  a  truth,  then, 
that  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not  executed  speedily,  and 
that  after  death  is  the  judgment.  That  God  sends  afflictions 
upon  his  children  in  this  world  for  their  good,  we  readily  learn 
from  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  God  punishes  nations  as  such, 
here,  is  equally  clear ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  when  God 
showers  his  judgments  down  upon  nations,  the  innocent  often 


116  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

suffer  with  the  guilty.  This,  however,  only  furnishes  another 
argument  in  favor  of  a  day  in  the  future  world  when  God  shall 
judge  in  righteousness. 

XL  VII.  "  Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee 
a  crown  of  life."  Rev.  2  :  10. 

What  means  the  conditionality  of  this  promise,  if  Universalism 
is  sound  ?  It  is  perfect  nonsense  ;  for  if  all  are  to  be  saved,  as 
Universalists  assert,  what  matters  it  whether  they  are  faithful  or 
unfaithful  ?  Are  not  the  wwfaithful  just  as  much  heirs  to  the 
crown  of  life  as  the  faithful  ?  This  short  text  is  of  itself  suffi 
cient  to  refute  the  infidel  sentiment,  that  our  conduct  here  has 
nothing  to  do  with  securing  our  future  bliss. 

XL  VIII.  "  Labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for 
that  meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life."  John  6  :  27. 

Mr.  Balfour,  in  his  Reply  to  Stuart,  (p.  74,)  says  :  "  You 
assume  that '  everlasting  life  '  refers  to  the  future  endless  happi 
ness  of  the  righteous.  This  I  deny.  Everlasting  life  designates 
indeed  the  happiness  of  the  righteous,  but  it  is  their  happiness  in 
this  world."  By  this  Christ  is  made  to  say,  "  Labor  not  for 
that  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that  which  endureth  unto  hap 
piness  in  this  world."  And  does  not  the  happiness  enjoyed  in 
this  world  perish  ?  This  text,  as  all  must  see,  lies  directly 
against  that  form  of  error  which  denies  the  necessity  of  anxiety 
and  labor  in  order  to  secure  future  bliss.  "  A  company  were  fol 
lowing  the  Saviour  for  the  loaves  and  fishes,  and  like  many  at 
the  present  time,  were  laboring  exclusively  for  worldly  good. 
Christ  rebukes  them,  and  exhorts  them  to  labor  for  'blessings 
which  endure  — abide,  unto  everlasting  life.'  How  would  such 
an  exhortation  sound  from  the  lips  of  a  Universalist  preacher  ? 
Had  Christ  been  a  preacher  of  Universalism,  the  Jews  might 
have  turned  upon  him,  and  said  :  You  acknowledge  that  our 
present  business  is  to  provide  for  our  temporal  wants,  our  eternal 


Sec.  49.]  tJNIVERSAUSM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  117 

wants  being  above  and  beyond  our  reach.     In  seeking  loaves 
and  fishes,  then,  we  are  in  our  appropriate  sphere  !  "  Russell. 

XLIX.  "  And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their  first  estate, 
lut  left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  reserved  in  everlasting 
chains  under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day." 
Jude  6. 

The  author  of  the  Guide  asserts  that  there  is  nothing  in  this 
passage  which  renders  it  necessary  to  apply  it  to  any  order  of 
beings  above  men.     He  makes  a  display  of  Greek  criticism,  to 
show  that  angel  signifies  a  messenger  ;  and  asserts  that  the  word 
angel  is  not  a  name  of  nature,  but  of  office,  which  no  one  to  our 
knowledge  ever  denied,  and  then   states,   respecting  their  not 
having  kept  their  first  estate  and  leaving  their  own  habitation, 
that  "  all  this  has  taken  place  among  men  on  the  earth."     On 
the  word  everlasting,  an  opportunity  is  afforded  to  show  that  it  is 
not  always  used  to  signify  endless  duration ;  hence  we  are  re 
minded   of   the  everlasting  mountains,   hills,    priesthood,   &c. 
And  as  it  respects  the  judgment,  he  inquires,   "  But  is  there  no 
judgment  in  this  world  ?     We  read,  '  Yerily  there  is  a  God  that 
judgeth  [where  ?]  in  the  earth.'  "    (Sec.  LI.)     Concerning  the 
phrase  "great  day,""  he  finds  somewhere  in  the  Old  Testament 
that  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  near,"  and  somewhere  irr  the  New 
Testament  that  "  the  great  day  of  his  wrath  is  come  ;  "   and  this 
of  course  is  sufficient,  with  Mr.  Whittemore,  to  deprive  the  text 
in  Jude  of  its  future-state  reference.    But  while  he  does  this,  he 
leaves  us  staring  about  for  its  true  interpretation.     The  absurd 
ity  of  a  reference   to  Jerusalem  is  so  great,  that  even  Mr.  W. 
dares  not  hazard  it.     Observe,  the  author  of  the  Guide  denies 
that  these  angels  are  superhuman,  insists  that  they  are  men,  and 
that  their  retribution  is  in  this  world.     Now  how  soon  are  men 
punished  for  their  sins,  according  to  this  same  Guide  ?     Let  Mr. 
W.  answer.     "  One  important  truth  embraced  by  Universalists 
iSj —  that  the  punishment  of  sin  is  not  delayed  until  the  future 
existence,  but  that  it  is  swift,  sure,  and  inevitable  ;  that  sin  goes 


118  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    TIIE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

hand  in  hand  with  woe  throughout  its  whole  duration ;  that  it  is 
itself  hell,  into  which  the  sinner  cannot  plunge,  without  feeling 
its  flames  and  torments.  In  regard  to  retribution,  such  is  the 
doctrine  of  Universalists. "  Guide,  p.  262.  Here  it  is  given, 
as  a  denominational  sentiment,  that  sin  is  not  only  punished  as 
soon  as  committed,  but  that  sinners  are  punished  while  commit- 
ingit;  that  sin  "  is  itself  hell,"  i.e.  sin  and  punishment  for 
sin  are  one  and  the  same  thing  ! !  But  in  the  text  under  con 
sideration,  the  angels,  or  men  as  Mr.  W.  will  have  it,  are  said 
to  be  "  reserved  in  everlasting  chains,  under  darkness,  unto  the 
judgment  of  the  great  day  ;  "  and  we  are  also  informed  (2  Pet. 
2  :  9)  that  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of 
temptation,  and  to  KESERYE  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judg 
ment  to  be  punished."  Now  here  is  a  particular,  specified 
period,  called  the  day  of  judgment,  for  which  ungodly  men  are 
reserved,  in  which  they  are  to  be  punished.  Call  this  period 
Jerusalem's  destruction  or  what  we  please,  it  is  equally  at  war 
with  the  above  quoted  view  of  punishment.  What  folly  to  talk 
of  sinners  being  reserved  unto  any  particular  period  for  punish 
ment  if  they  are  punished  without  any  remission  as  soon  as  they 
sin,  or  while  sinning.  According  to  this,  every  Jew  had  been 
punished  all  his  individual  sins  deserved,  up  to  the  moment 
when  the  Romans  besieged  the  city  of  David.  To  whom  shall 
we  attribute  this  folly  ?  Not  to  the  inspired  apostle,  surely,  but 
to  Universalist  teachers  who  have  perverted  the  word  of  God. 
No  unsophisticated  mind  would  ever  see  a  mere  temporal  calam 
ity  in  the  words  of  Jude.  He  wrote  for  those  who  had  been 
educated  in  the  belief  of  future  retributions,  and  they  could  but 
understand  him  as  teaching  the  same  doctrine.  See  Sec.  L. 

L.  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of 
temptation,  and  to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment, 
to  be  punished."  2  Pet.  2  :  9. 

The  author  of  the  Guide  has  a  very  summary  way  of  dispos 
ing  of  those  knotty  texts  which  teach  most  clearly  a  future 


Sec.  51.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  119 

judgment.  It  is  to  refer  his  readers  to  what  he  has  said  upon 
texts  partly  parallel,  or  perhaps  referring  to  another  subject  alto 
gether.  For,  to  come  right  out  and  plainly  say  that  Peter 
meant  to  say,  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out 
of  temptation,  and  to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  to  be  punished,"  would  present  such  an  absurdity, 
that  even  his  admirers  would  start  back.  He  deemed  it,  doubt 
less,  much  more  safe  to  withhold  his  explanation,  and  refer  us  to 
what  he  has  said  on  Jude  6,  where  an  opportunity  is  afforded 
for  a  display  on  the  words  angels,  darkness,  chains,  everlasting, 
&c.  Mr.  Balfour,  however,  who  never  stands  for  trifles 
when  writing  upon  the  scriptures,  hesitates  not  to  throw  this  into 
the  Jerusalem  catastrophe.  Essays,  p.  257.  So  the  wicked  of 
the  apostle's  time  were  reserved  four  years,  at  least,  to  be  pun 
ished  in  the  siege  of  the  Romans !  But  did  none  of  the  unjust 
of  the  apostle's  time  die  before  the  Romans  came  against  the 
holy  city  ?  Again,  how  does  the  idea  of  their  being  reserved 
unto  that  time,  comport  with  the  notion  that  "  as  quick  as  the 
thunder  follows  the  lightning's  flash,  just  so  quick  does  punish 
ment  follow  crime."  Witherell,  p.  31.  Is  the  thunder  unheard 
till  four  years  after  the  lightning's  flash  ?  Peter's  epistle  bears 
date  A.  D.  66  —  Jerusalem  was  overthrown  A.  D.  70,  four 
years  after.  The  text  means  just  what  it  appears  to  mean.  See 
Sec.  XLIX,  also  Sec.  VIII. 

LI.   "  For  judgment  I  came  into  this  world"     John  9  :  39. 
"  Verily  he  is  a  God  thatjudgeth  in  the  earth"  Ps.  58  :  11. 
"  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world."     John  12  :  31. 
"  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world"     John  12  :  47. 
'•  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day"     John  6  :  40. 

In  the  Bible  we  find  the  words  judge  and  judgment  are  fre 
quently  applied  to  events  which  have  their  fulfillment  in  this 
world,  and  none  to  our  knowledge  ever  disputed  it.  But  were 
we  to  derive  our  knowledge  from  Universalist  authors  only,  we 
should  conclude  that  those  who  oppose  their  views,  either  wick- 


120  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

cdly  deny  this,  or  else  are  grossly  ignorant  of  the  fact.  The 
true  question  at  issue  between  us  is,  Is  there  a  future  judgment  ? 
The  negative  of  this  is  taken  by  their  writers,  and  then  they  go 
on  to  prove  most  conclusively,  from  the  scriptures,  that  God 
judges  in  this  world ;  and  this  they  offer  as  a  sufficient  reason 
why  there  shall  be  no  future  judgment !  Take  the  following 
from  Mr.  Whittemore,  as  a  specimen  :  "Tor  JUDGMENT  I 
am  come  into  THIS  world.'  John  9  :  39.  It  is  absolutely  dis 
respectful  to  the  Son  of  God,  who  tells  us  that  he  came  into 
THIS  WORLD  for  judgment,  to  suppose  that  judgment  is  in 
some  other  world!  Hear  that,  all  ye  Presbyterians,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  and  so  called  Orthodox  Christians,  who  oppose  God  by 
saying  that  Christ  has  gone  into  the  future  world  for  judgment." 
Trumpet,  April  28,  1855. 

With  the  same  logical  force  do  they  frequently  employ  Ps. 
58  : 11,  "  Verily  he  is  a  God  that  judgeth  in  the  earth."  The 
argument  is  this  :  God  judgeth  in  the  earth  ;  therefore,  there  will 
be  no  future  judgment.  The  sophistry  of  this  will  at  once 
appear  by  adopting  this  method  with  other  subjects.  For  in 
stance,  God  is  glorified  in  the  earth ;  therefore  God  will  not  be 
glorified  in  the  future  state  !  "On  earth  peace,  good  will 
towards  men;  "  therefore  there  can  be  neither  peace,  nor  good 
will  towards  men  in  the  future  world  ! 

"  We  which  have  believed  DO  enter  into  rest ;  "  (Hcb.  4:3;) 
therefore  there  can  be  no  rest  in  heaven  ! 

Take  the  words  saved  and  salvation,  which  are  often  used  to 
express  temporal  deliverance  and  the  state  of  the  justified  soul 
in  this  world.  Universalists  talk  much  about  salvation  in  the 
future  world,  as  all  know.  Now  what  would  be  thought  were 
we  to  rise  up  and  deny  future  salvation,  and  make  a  great  parade 
of  texts  in  capitals,  to  prove  that  salvation  pertained  to  this 
life  —  that  men  are  said  to  be  saved  now,  in  a  great  number  of 
instances?  Suppose  that,  to  meet  all  the  texts  Universal 
ists  could  urge  in  support  of  future  salvation,  we  were  to  insist 
upon  it  that  they  contain  no  evidence  of  future  salvation  for  any 


SeC.  51.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  121 

of  our  race  ;  and  should  contend,  most  stoutly,  that  God's  salva 
tion  is  in  this  world,  and  urge  in  proof  of  this,  that  the  Israel 
ites  (Ex.  14:13)  were  commanded  to  "stand  still  and  SEE 
THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  LORD,"  [which  they  could 
not  have  done  if  salvation  is  in  the  future  state  ;  and  furthermore, 
to  put  the  whole  matter  to  rest,  the  words  of  Paul  should  be 
presented,  (2  Cor.  6 :  2,)  "  NOW  IS  THE  DAY  OF  SAL 
VATION."  And  suppose,  too,  that  we  should  demand  of 
them  such  texts  as  the  following,  to  establish  the  doctrine  that 
men  would  be  saved  in  the  future  state  :  "  Men  shall  be  holy 
and  happy  in  the  future  world"  "  Men  shall  be  saved  in  the 
immortal  state."  "  Men  shall  be  saved  beyond  the  grave." 
Suppose,  we  say,  that  we  should  deny  that  there  is  any  salvation 
in  the  future  world,  arid  bring  such  proofs,  and  make  such  a 
demand  to  sustain  it,  what  would  be  thought  of  such  a  course  ? 
It  would  be  judged  the  vilest  quibbling,  and  a  most  egregious 
perversion  of  God's  word.  But  as  wicked  as  this  would  be,  it 
is  precisely  the  course  pursued  by  Universalists  respecting  the 
judgment.  If  we  speak  of  a  future  judgment,  they  reply  with 
an  air  of  triumph,  (John  12  : 31,)  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of 
this  world  ;  "  and  the  author  o/  the  Guide  makes  a  similar  de 
mand  with  the  one  above  named,  respecting  future  punishment. 
(Sec.  CXV.) 

Since  the  last  named  text  is  so  much  in  use,  a  few  thoughts 
upon  it  will  be  given.  Universalists  seem  to  consider  it  of  great 
importance,  because  the  present  tense  is  used,  "  Now  is,"  &c. 
This  was  spoken  nearly  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Well  then,  if,  because  the  Saviour  said,  "  Now  is 
the  judgment  of  this  world,"  a  future  general  judgment  must  be 
set  aside,  then  for  the  same  reason  must  a  judgment  at  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem  be  set  aside.  Take  this  out  of  their 
theory,  what  will  they  do  with  the  texts  they  find  it  so  conve 
nient  to  refer  to  that  event  ?  There  is  another  text  in  the  same 
chapter  with  this,  which  this  class  of  expositors  see  fit  to  let 
alone.  It  is  this,  (ver.  47,)  "  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world." 


122  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

We  have  Mr.  Balfour's  Essay  of  139  pages,  in  which  he  pro 
fesses  to  examine  all  those  places  where  the  words  judge  and 
judgment  occur  in  the  New  Testament,  but  no  notice  is  taken  of 
this  text.  There  are  five  volumes  of  their  books  before  us, 
each  having  a  somewhat  copious  index  of  texts,  yet  none  of  them 
name  this.  So  far  as  memory  serves,  we  have  never  seen  it 
named  in  any  of  their  writings.  Why  they  are  thus  silent  upon 
ver.  47,  while  they  so  often  quote  a  part  of  ver.  31  of  the  same 
chapter,  the  reader  can  easily  judge.  Yer.  47  is  not  in  the 
right  shape  for  them.  The  whole  of  ver.  31  reads  thus  :  "  Now 
is  the  judgment  of  this  world  :  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world 
be  cast  out."  Mr.  French,  the  Universalist  minister  named 
Sec.  1,  while  attempting  to  correct  his  brethren  in  a  sermon 
before  the  Maine  Convention,  says  : 

"  But  do  we  not  injure  our  cause  by  quoting  the  words  of 
our  Saviour,  saying:  "Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world; 
now  is  the  prince  of  this  world  cast  out.'  John  12  :  31.  Is 
not  Wakefield  right,  who  applies  this  text  to  the  decision  which 
the  Jews  were  about  to  make  against  Jesus ;  rejecting  him,  and 
declaring  him  worthy  of  death  ?  But  how  different  this  from 
the  judgment  which  God  executes  upon  the  world  ?  Should  we 
not  make  improvements  by  being  more  cautious,  by  selecting 
proof  texts  with  more  care  and  judgment?  "  Banner,  August 
5,  1843. 

Their  perversions  are  so  numerous,  that  Mr.  French  has  a 
task  before  him,  if  he  thinks  to  reform  the  order  in  this  respect ; 
and  furthermore,  should  he  succeed,  it  would  be  the  death  of 
the  system.  This,  the  convention,  it  would  seem,  were  aware 
of,  and  were  so  much  displeased  with  his  effort,  that  they  did 
not  vote  the  publication  of  his  sermon.  Christ  says,  (John 
12  :  47,  48,)  "  If  any  man  hear  my  words,  and  believe  not,  I 
judge  him  not :  for  I  come  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save 
the  world  ;  *  *  *  the  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same 
shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day."  In  this  we  are  taught,  that 
the  design  of  Christ's  first  advent  was  not  to  judge  men,  but  to 


123 


SeC.  51.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

save  them,  and  are  referred  to  a  future  judgment,  when  men 
shall  be  judged  for  their  treatment  of  Christ's  word  or  doctrine. 
This  is  to  take  place  at  the  last  day.  While  the  author  of  the 
Guide  fails  to  give  us  light  upon  ver.  47,  he  does  favor  us  with 
an  exposition  of  ver.  48.  Upon  this,  as  found  Guide  p.  166, 
we  shall  offer  a  few  thoughts.  The  course  pursued  is,  as  usual 
with  this  class  of  writers,  both  evasive  and  sophistical,  and  dis 
covers  anything  but  a  desire  to  bring  out  the  true  sense.  He 
carries  his  readers  away  to  the  parable  of  the  vineyard,  (Matt. 
21,)  then  to  the  parable  of  the  marriage  feast,  (Matt.  22,)  then 
to  Matt.  24,  where  the  phrase  "  end  of  the  world  "  occurs,  then 
to  Heb.  10  :  25,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  a  "  day  approach 
ing,"  then  to  1  John  2:  18,  where  the  phrase  "last  time" 
is  found,  and  he  will  have  it,  that  all  these  texts  relate  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  assumes  that  John  12  :  48  refers 
to  the  same  event.  Now  we  ask,  if  truth  only  was  the  object  of 
this  man,  why  did  he  not  refer  his  readers  to  the  other  passages, 
where  our  Saviour  uses  the  expression  "  last  day?"  No  one 
could  learn  from  what  he  has  said  in  the  Guide  on  this  text, 
that  the  phrase  "  last  day  "  occurred  anywhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament.  Christ  says,  (John  6  :  40,)  "  And  this  is  the  will 
of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the  Son,  and 
believeth  on  him,  may  have  everlasting  life  :  and  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day."  See,  also,  verses  49,  44  and  54  of 
the  same  chapter,  where  the  phrase  is  used  in  the  same  sense. 
How  this  expression  was  understood  in  our  Saviour's  time,  we 
may  learn  from  the  conversation  between  him  and  Martha,  on 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  John  11:23,24. 
"  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again.  Martha 
saith  unto  him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrec 
tion  at  the  last  day."  (Sec.  XC.) 

It  is  obvious  that  the  expression  "  last  day,"  as  used  by  our 
Lord  and  Martha,  refers  to  the  general  resurrection.  This  being 
the  case,  can  any  be  at  a  loss  to  know  the  meaning  of  the 
Saviour,  in  the  passage  under  consideration  ?  Christ  says  four 


UNIVEIISALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

times,  (John  6,)  that  he  will  raise  men  up  at  the  "  last  day." 
Martha  had  confidence  in  the  fact  that  Lazarus  would  rise  in  the 
resurrection  in  the  last  day  (John  11  :  24  ) ;  and  Christ  says, 
(John  12  :  48,)  of  him  who  rejects  him  and  his  truth,  "  The 
word  that  I  have  spoken,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last 
day."  It  must  be  obvious  to  all,  we  think,  that  if  one  of  these 
texts  refers  to  Jerusalem's  destruction,  they  all  do,  which  repre 
sents  Martha  as  believing  in  the  resurrection  of  her  brother 
from  the  dead,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ! !  These  texts 
taken  together,  connect  the  judgment  with  the  resurrection. 
They  teach  a  resurrection  and  judgment  at  the  end  of  time,  or 
in  the  last  day,  which  is  fatal  to  modern  Universalism.  This, 
the  author  of  the  Guide  probably  saw,  hence  his  labor  to  turn 
the  eyes  of  his  reader  to  some  half  dozen  other  texts,  having 
no  connection  whatever  with  the  one  before  us,  while  he  would 
keep  from  their  sight  five  passages  in  which  the  same  expression 
is  found.  Thus  the  word  of  God  is  handled  deceitfully,  and 
Universalism  propagated. 

One  thought  more.  Mr.  Skinner  asserts  that,  "  All  the 
judgments  of  which  the  scriptures  speak  are  to  destroy  sin,  and 
reform  the  sinner.  U.  Ill  and  Def.  p.  248.  "  I  came  not  to 
judge  the  world,"  says  the  Saviour,  or  in  other  words,  to  har 
monize  with  Mr.  Skinner's  doctrine,  "  I  came  not  to  destroy  sin 
and  reform  the  sinner  "  !  !  Did  the  Saviour  mean  to  say  that  ? 
Truth  never  thus  belies  the  Saviour  and  his  work. 

LIT.  "  Te  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your  sins  ; 
whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come"  &c.  John  8  :  21,  22,  23,  24. 

'  Te  shall  die  in  your  sins."  We  are  told  (Trumpet,  No. 
577)  that  by  this,  "  Jesus  referred  to  the  approaching  destruc 
tion  of  the  Jewish  nation,"  and  that  "  he  spoke  of  a  national 
and  not  a  natural  death."  But  what  evidence  is  there  that  our 
Lord  is  discoursing  about  Jerusalem's  overthrow  here  ?  Just 
none  at  all,  either  in  the  text  or  context.  "  Ye  shall  seek  me." 
Have  not  the  Jews  as  a  people  continued  to  reject  Christ  to  the 


SeC.   52.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  125 

present  hour  ?  How  clear  it  is  that  the  Saviour  was  speaking, 
not  of  the  nation,  but  of  individuals.  Mr.  Page  in  his  notes 
disagrees  with  Mr.  Whittemore,  and  says  :  "  Some  understand 
this  to  denote  the  national  or  political  death  which  soon  after 
wards  befell  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  sinfulness.  To  me 
it  seems  more  probable  that  Jesus  used  the  phrase  shall  die 
in  its  literal  sense.  I  understand  his  argument  thus  :  You  are 
now  sinful,  and  especially  guilty  of  rejecting  the  Messiah,  whose 
divine  mission  has  been  sufficiently  authenticated  :  I  shall  sot»n 
depart  from  the  earth ;  you  will  continue  seeking  for  the  Mes 
siah,  (for  me,  though  ye  know  it  not,)  but  cannot  come  to  him 
or  find  him,  for  he  will  be  in  heaven.  In  this  hopeless  search 
you  will  persist,  and  will  die  without  having  found  or  recognized 
him, —  guilty  of  having  rejected  him  when  he  was  manifested  to 
you,  in  addition  to  all  your  other  sins." 

So  we  see  that  the  Universalist  commentator  admits  that  it  is 
not  a  national,  but  a  literal  death  of  the  persons  the  Saviour 
addressed,  who  were  to  "  die  in  their  sins."  But  it  is  said  that 
Christ  expressed  the  same  to  his  disciple  (John  18  :  33)  that  he 
did  to  the  Jews,  viz.:  "  Whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come."  By  a 
comparison  of  the  passages,  and  the  connection  in  which  they 
are  found,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  very  important  dif 
ference. 

1.  Christ  told  the  Jews  that  they  should  die  in  their  sins. 
But  he  said  nothing  like  this  to  his  disciples. 

2.  Christ  said  to  the  Jews,    "  Ye  are  from  beneath  ;  I  am 
from  above  :  ye  are  of  this  world  ;  I  am  not  of  this  world ;  " 
and  assigns  it  as  a  reason  why  he  doomed  them  to  die  in  their 
sins.     This  he  never  said  to  his  disciples. 

3.  Christ  explained  to  Peter  what  he  meant  by  saying  to  his 
disciples,  "Whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come,"  as  follows  :  "Whither 
I  go  thou  canst  not  follow  me  now  :  but  thou  shalt  follow  me  after 
wards"     But  he  gave  no  such  explanation  and  promise  to  the 
Jews  :  but  on  the  contrary  he  declared  to  them  most  positively 


126  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

that  they  should  die  in  their  sins,  and  that  they  should  not  go 
where  he  did. 

The  author  of  the  Guide,  p.  165,  says:  after  quoting 
the  words  addressed  to  Peter,  chap,  13  :  36,  "  The  same  word 
may  be  applied  to  the  Jews.  They  could  not  follow  Christ 
then,  but  they  would  at  another  time."  Mr.  Whittemore  may 
so  apply  these  words,  but  Christ  himself  gives  them  no  such 
application.  The  oft  perverted  text,  "  So  all  Israel  shall  be 
saved,"  is  lugged  in  by  the  author  of  the  Guide  to  supply  the 
Saviour's  omission,  and  to  prove  that  all  the  Jews  will  go  to 
heaven  where  Christ  has  gone.  See  Sec.  V,  where  this  text  is 
examined. 

LIII.  "  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you,  and 
persecute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you 
falsely,  for  my  sake.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad ;  for 
great  is  your  reward  in  heaven"  Matt.  5  :  11,  12  ;  also, 
Luke  6  : 22,  23. 

There  lies  before  us  a  work  entitled  "  Scripture  Doctrine," 
by  S.  R.  Smith,  designed  for  the  instruction  of  children  in  Uni- 
versalism,  and  has  been  used  quite  extensively  in  Universalist 
Sabbath  schools.  The  following  is  the  note  upon  this  text 
entire,  as  found  p.  28  :  "  Nothing  is  more  common  than  for 
professing  Christians  to  speak  of  heaven  as  a  glorified  state  after 
death  ;  and  as  being  the  place  where  believers  will  receive  their 
reward.  And  yet  it  is  believed  there  is  no  one  place  in  which 
the  word  is  used  in  the  Bible,  where  it  obviously  means  life  or 
happiness,  or  the  place  of  these,  after  death.  Nor  does  any 
one  seriously  expect  the  felicity  of  immortality  as  the  reward  of 
his  obedience  —  on  the  contrary,  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  the 
free  gift  of  God.  Why  then  encourage  others  to  hope  for  that 
as  a  reward,  which  none  can  expect  but  as  a  gift  ?  The  truth 
is,  the  gospel  is 'called  heaven,  and  he  who  believes  the  gospel 
is  in  heaven.  Eph.  2  :  6." 

This  is  the  instruction  Universalists  are  imparting  to  the  youth 


SeC.   53.]  UNIYERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  127 

of  our  land,  under  the  guise  of  Christianity,  and  this  is  the 
manner  in  which  they  dispose  of  this  precious  passage  which  has 
afforded  support  to  Christians  in  all  ages  of  the  church  under 
the  most  afflicting  circumstances  ;  which  has  enabled  them  to 
meet  death  in  all  its  cruel  forms,  having  respect  to  the  recom 
pense  of  reward.  But  now  to  support  a  rotten  system,  this 
must  be  given  up ;  and  we  are  told,  by  those  who  profess  to  be 
ministers  of  Christ,  that  it  is  folly  to  "speak  of  heaven  as  a 
glorified  state  after  death,"  and  that  "  there  is  no  one  place  in 
which  the  word  is  used  in  the  Bible,  where  it  obviously  means 
the  life  or  happiness  of  these  after  death  / "  So  we  see  a 
future  heaven  is  denied  as  well  as  a  future  hell.  Christians, 
then,  are  not  to  speak  of  heaven  as  a  glorified  state  after  death, 
and  there  is  no  reward  for  the  righteous  in  the  future  world  ! 
This  is  Universalism.  But  let  us  turn  from  this  to  the  Bible, 
and  see  if  there  is  such  a  place  as  heaven  after  death.  Where 
is  the  Saviour?  "  So  then  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  them, 
he  was  received  up  into  heaven  and  sat  on  the  right  hand  of 
God."  Mark  16:19.  "Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye 
here  gazing  up  into  heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken 
up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  have 
seen  him  go  into  heaven."  Acts  1 :  11.  Peter  speaking  of 
Christ,  says  :  "  Who  has.gone  into  heaven  and  is  on  the  right  hand 
of  God."  1  Peter  3  :  22.  Paul  says  :  "  For  Christ  has  not 
entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the 
figures  of  the  true  ;  but  into  heaven  itself,  to  appear  in  the 
presence  of  God  for  us."  Heb.  9  :  24. 

Are  any  to  be  in  heaven  but  Christ  ?  The  Saviour  says, 
(John  14  : 2,  3,)  when  about  to  go  to  his  Father  :  "In  my 
Father's  house  are  many  mansions."  "I  go  to  prepare  a 
PLACE  for  you,  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also."  Speak 
ing  of  this  heavenly  family,  Paul  says,  (Eph.  3  :  15,)  "  For  this 
cause  I  bow  my  knee  unto  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named ; "  and 
in  view  of  the  glories  of  heaven  he  says,  (Rom.  8  :  17,  18,) 


128  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"  And  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  God  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  be  glori 
fied  together.  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall 
be  revealed  in  us."  Christ  prohibits  laying  up  treasures  on  the 
earth,  (Matt.  6:19,20,)  but  enjoins  laying  up  treasures  in 
heaven.  Peter  in  speaking  to  his  brethren  of  an  incorruptible 
inheritance,  says  of  it,  (1  Peter  1  :  4,  5,)  "  Reserved  in  heaven 
for  you,  who  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto 
salvation." 

A  host  of  other  scriptures  might  be  adduced  equally  plain. 
These  teach  that  heaven  is  a  place,  and  that  Christians  may 
expect  a  glorified  state  after  death,  too  plainly  to  need  comment. 
Again,  it  is  said,  "  The  gospel  is  called  heaven,  and  he  who 
believes  the  gospel  is  in  heaven  ;  "  and  in  proof  of  this  bold 
assertion  we  are  referred  to  Eph.  2  :  6.  Does  this  teach  that 
the  gospel  is  heaven,  and  that  believers  are  in  heaven? 
"  And  hath  raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  together  in 
heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus."  What  is  there  here  to  prove 
that  the  gospel  is  heaven,  and  that  believers  are  in  it  ?  They 
sit  together  in  heavenly  places,  i.  e.,  places  partaking  of  the 
nature  of  heaven,  but  not  heaven  itself."  "  He  who  believes 
the  gospel  is  in  heaven."  But  what  is  it  to  believe  the  gospel 
according  to  Universalist  divines  ?  It  is  to  believe  in  Univer- 
salism,  for  with  them  nothing  else  is  the  gospel,  as  all  know 
who  hear  them.  So  heaven  is  the  inheritance  of  those,  and 
those  only,  who  believe  in  Universalism,  and  they  are  now  in 
heaven  !  Reader,  did  it  ever  occur  to  you  before  that  those 
around  you  who  clamor  for  Universalism  are  now  the  pure  in 
habitants  of  heaven  ?  The  doctrine  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  pas 
sage  is  this  :  The  privations,  persecutions  and  sufferings  of  every 
kind  the  Christian  shall  be  called  to  endure  in  this  world  for  his 
sake,  will  enhance  his  bliss  and  glory  in  the  future  world. 
The  same  thing  is  expressed  2  Cor.  4  :  16-18.  A  heart  com 
forting  and  encouraging  doctrine  to  afflicted  faithful  Christians  ; 


SeC.   54.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  129 

and  palsied  be  the  hand  that  would  deprive  them  of  it  by  infidel 
perversions  and  sophistries.  No  Christian  merits,  or  expects  to 
merit,  heaven ;  but  God  has  graciously  promised  a  reward  in 
heaven  in  proportion  to  our  sufferings  and  faithfulness  here,  for 
his  sake.  On  salvation  a  gift,  see  Sec.  XCIX. 

LIV.     "  For  tliou  shall  be  recompensed  at  the  resurrection 
of  the  just"     Luke  14  :  14. 

This  text  connects  human  conduct  with  the  eternal  state,  and 
of  course  it  must  be  destroyed  in  some  way :  so  Mr.  Whittemore 
occupies  nearly  eight  pages  of  his  "  Notes  on  the  Parables," 
contending  with  common  sense  and  the  Bible  to  make  it  appear 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  just  took  place  when  Jerusalem  was 
destroyed.  Speaking  of  Christ's  coming  to  destroy  the  Jewish 
state,  he  says,  (N.  on  Par.,  p.  168)  :  "At  this  time  the 
Christians  were  to  be  exalted,  raised  from  a  low  condition." 
Again:  "This  was  the  resurrection  of  the  just;  and  at  that 
time,  those  who  had  done  them  favors  were  to  be  recompensed." 
The  Saviour  was  at  the  table  of  a  Pharisee,  whose  creed  included 
the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust,  (Sec. 
X.)  and  he  addressed  him  thus  :  "  When  thou  makest  a  dinner 
or  a  supper,  call  not  thy  friends  nor  thy  brethren,  neither  thy 
kinsmen  nor  thy  rich  neighbors  ;  lest  they  also  bid  thee  again,  and 
a  recompense  be  made  thee ;  but  when  thou  makest  a  feast,  call 
the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind,  and  thou  shalt  be 
blessed  ;  for  they  cannot  recompense  thee,  for  thou  shalt  be 
recompensed  at  the  resurrection  of  the  just. "  Did  the  Saviour 
mean  to  say  to  this  Pharisee,  you  may  look  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  for  your  reward  for  entertaining  the  poor,  maimed, 
lame  and  blind,  for  they  shall  all  be  raised  to  eminence  and 
wealth  then  ?  The  thought  forms  the  very  climax  of  absurdity. 
To  attempt  a  serious  refutation  of  such  burlesque  on  the  words 
of  the  guileless  Redeemer,  would  be  useless.  "It  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  this  explanation  makes  the  divine  Saviour  contradict 
himself  in  the  same  sentence.  To  reduce  it  to  plain  English  it 
8 


130  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

would  read  thus  :  Give  not  to  the  rich.  Why  ?  Because  they 
can  and  will  repay.  But  give  to  the  poor.  Why?  Because 
they  will  soon  become  rich  and  then  they  will  return  the  whole  !  " 
Whitman. 

LY.     "  The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  forever."     Lam.  3  :  31. 
"  Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved."     1  Tim.  2  :  4. 
We  take  the  following  from  a  number  of  the  Trumpet : 

"  NEGATIVE    AND    AFFIRMATIVE. 

"  '  The  Lord  WILL  NOT  cast  off  forever,'     Lam.  3  :  31. 

"  '  God  WILL  HAVE  all  men  to  be  saved.'     1  Tim.  2:4. 

"  It  is  necessary  to  reverse  both  these,  if  the  doctine  of  end 
less  misery  be  true,  and  say  God  WILL  cast  off  forever  —  God 
WILL  NOT  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth." 

This  doubtless  is  considered  a  potent  argument  in  favor  of 
their  doctrine,  by  the  readers  of  the  Trumpet,  while  the  whole 
of  it  is  built  upon  the  perversion  of  two  texts.  The  text  in 
Lam.  3  :  31,  is  made  to  teach  as  follows  :  "The  Lord  will  not 
cast  off  endlessly  in  the  future  state.  '  When  a  stubborn  text 
•presents  itself  teaching  endless  punishment,  it  must  be  destroyed 
in  some  way ;  then  come  the  quibbles,  and  quirks,  and  twists, 
and  sophistries,  and  negatives,  and  bold  assertions,  and  orthodox 
authorities,  and  garbled  extracts,  and  scripture  references,  and 
Greek  criticisms ;  and,  while  the  "  poor  blind  candidate"  of  a 
reader  is  groping  about  amid  all  this  smoke,  the  question  is 
fully  settled,  and  he  is  brought  out  into  the  glorious  light  of 
Universalism  by,  "  The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  forever,"  signifi 
cantly  put  in  italics  or  blazing  capitals.  For  a  specimen,  see 
Whittemore's  Guide,  pp.  124-128.  Now  this  text  has  no  more 
reference  to  a  future  state,  than  it  has  to  Jehu's  furious  driving. 
Did  it  read,  "  The  Lord  will  cast  off  forever,"  and  were  we  to 
bring  it  to  prove  our  doctrine,  we  should  be  met  with  criticisms 
showing  that  the  word  forever,  as  used  here,  does  not  mean 


Sec.  55.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    01*    tfHE   BIBLE.  131 

endless;  that  the  subject,  over  which  the  prophet  was  lamenting, 
was  not  a  casting  off  in  a  future  state,  but  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
in  this  world.  That  this  was  spoken  of  the  Jews,  "  the  daughter  of 
Zion,"  "  the  daughter  of  Judah,"  all  will  see,  who  will  examine. 
The  Jews  were  then  cast  off.  They  were  in  captivity,  at  Baby 
lon,  and  the  prophet  received  encouragement  from  God  that  their 
captivity  should  have  an  end, —  that  he  would  not  cast  off  for 
ever,  but  that  the  nation  should  be  restored  to  their  native  land. 
This  perversion  is  so  glaring,  that  some  of  the  ministers  of  that 
order  begin  to  see  that  it  is  no  benefit  to  their  cause.  In  the 
Banner,  for  August  5,  1843,  is  a  sermon  by  W.  R.  French, 
delivered  before  the  Maine  Convention  of  Universal ists,  in 
which  is  the  following  : 

"  We  contend  that  future  punishment  is  not  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament ;  that  all  its  inducements  to  reformation  are  drawn 
from  the  fear  of  punishment  and  hope  of  reward,  as  suffered  or 
enjoyed  in  this  life.  Taking  this  ground,  do  we  act  consistently 
in  quoting  texts  from  that  book  to  prove  that  all  men  will  be 
happy  in  the  future  life  ?  Does  it  look  like  going  on  to  perfec 
tion  ?  To  specify  texts  :  Who  has  not  heard  the  declaration  of 
Jeremiah  :  '  The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  forever,'  Lam.  3  :  31, 
adduced  in  proof  of  our  doctrine  ?  Yet  it  has,  probably,  no 
more  reference  to  the  future  life,  than  to  the  temporal  state  of 
the  aborigines  of  America.  Nor  is  this  the  sole  text  that  might 
be  mentioned ;  in  a  certain  class  of  publications  such  evidence 
abounds." 

True,  Mr.  French,  this  is  not  the  only  perverted  text,  and 
Universalist  publications  do  abound  with  such  evidence  ;  and  it 
is  also  true  that  Universalism  can  be  sustained  in  no  other  way. 
The  text  connected  with  this  to  make  out  the  argument  is 
equally  a  perversion.  Rev.  Sidney  Turner,  who  renounced  this 
error  in  1842,  says,  that  while  a  Universalist  preacher,  he  once 
took  this  text,  and  so  conscious  was  he  that  it  did  not  teach  the 
salvation  of  all  men,  that  he  announced  it  to  his  congregation, 
and  told  them  that  he  thought  it  expressed  a  will  of  desire,  and 


132  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

not  a  will  of  purpose.  This  of  course  was  not  very  grateful  to 
his  audience.  We  quote  from  memory.  Hear  Mr.  French 
upon  this  text,  in  the  sermon  just  named.  He  says : 

"And  would  it  not  subject  one  to  certain  condemnation,  a 
query  might  be  raised  respecting  the  language  of  Paul,  saying : 
'  Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  come  unto  the  knowl 
edge  of  the  truth.'  1  Tim.  2  :  4.  For  saith  Paul,  'I  exhort 
therefore,  that  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  intercessions, 
and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men  ;  for  kings,  and  for 
all  that  are  in  authority :  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peace 
able  life  in  all  godliness  and  honesty.  For  this  is  good  and 
acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour ;  who  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved,  and  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.' 
If  we  let  the  context  explain,  will  it  appear  that  salvation,  here, 
means  anything  more  than  leading  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in 
all  godliness  and  honesty,  which  all  those  will  possess  who  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth." 

Truly,  if  Mr.  French  keeps  on  throwing  aside  all  the  per 
verted  texts,  he  will  rip  up  the  whole  foundation,  and  the  crazy 
and  baseless  fabric  of  Universalism  will  come  tumbling  down 
about  his  ears  shortly.  Mr.  F.  is  still  a  Universalist  preacher. 
We  see,  then,  that  Mr.  Whittemore  perverts  two  texts  to  make 
his  argument.  There  are  no  two  scriptures  more  frequently 
quoted  by  Universalists,  than  these.  They  seem  to  rely  upon 
them  with  the  greatest  confidence,  to  prove  their  doctrine.  On 
the  will  of  God,  see  Sec.  LXXXV. 

LVI.  "  TJierefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Cltrist,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection  ;  not  laying  again  the 
foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of  faith 
towards  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on 
of  hands,  and  of  resurrection'  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment."  Heb.  6:1,  2. 

Mr.  Bulkely,   a  Universalist,    in   discussion   with   Rev.  E. 
Hutchins,  is  of  the  opinion  that  "  the  several  doctrines  enumer- 


Sec.  57.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP   THE   BIBLE.  133 

ated  were  certain  tenets  of  the  Judaising  Christians,  that  were 
not  essential  to  Christianity."  But  .the  apostle  explicitly  tells 
us  they  were  "  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ" 
Which  shall  we  follow  ?  If  Mr.  B.  is  correct,  then  the  "  resur 
rection  of  the  dead  "  is  not  essential  to  Christianity,  and  if  this 
is  so,  what  becomes  of  Universalism  ?  In  his  zeal  against  eter 
nal  judgment  he  has  discharged  a  gun  which  has  mortally 
wounded  himself.  But  says  Mr.  B.,  "  There  is  only  one  place 
in  the  scriptures  where  an  eternal  judgment  is  spoken  of." 
Well,  what  of  that  ?  How  many  plain  testimonies  to  a  point 
are  necessary  before  we  are  to  believe  what  God  says  ?  As  an 
offset  to  this,  we  state  that  the  expression,  "  all  shall  be  holy 
and  happy,"  does  not  occur  even  once  in  the  Bible,  and  the 
phrase  "destruction  of  Jerusalem  "  is  not  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  Dr.  Clarke  has  doubtless  given  the  true  sense  of 
the  expression,  "  eternal  judgment."  "  It  is  so  called  because 
the  decisions  of  the  judge  will  be  irreversible  and  ever  during, 
and  not  that  he  will  be  forever  making  that  decision."  Observe, 
the  apostle  in  the  order  of  his  arrangement,  places  the  judgment 
after  the  resurrection,  which  was  in  keeping  with  Jewish  doc 
trines  upon  this  subject.  He  wrote  to  the  Hebrews,  and  as  they 
would  understand  him  so  should  we.  These  Christians  are 
exhorted  to  leave  these  principles  as  the  scholar  leaves  the  ele 
mentary  principles ;  not  to  abandon  them  as  useless,  but  to  go 
on  to  higher  attainments,  for  so  far  are  the  elementary  principles 
from  being  worthless,  that,  though  he  leaves  them,  they  are  of 
constant  use  to  the  scholar  in  making  proficiency  in  the  higher 
branches  of  knowledge. 

LYII.  "  For  lam  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time 
of  my  departure  is  at  hand.  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I 
have  finished  my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith:  Henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness  which  the 
Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  in  that  day"  &c. 
2  Tim.  4  :  6-8. 

Of  this  striking  passage  the  author  of  the  Guide  takes  no 


134  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

notice.  It  is  not  found  in  his  index.  But  Mr.  Balfour  has 
occupied  no  less  than  eleven  pages  of  his  Essay,  in  which  he  has 
made  his  usual  display  of  Greek  criticism  and  scripture  refer 
ences,  to  prove  that  Paul  had  his  eye  upon  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  when  he  addressed  the  above  words  to  Timothy  !  To 
mention  this  to  the  honest  reader  of  the  Bible  is  to  refute  it.  Paul 
did  not  live  to  see  Jerusalem's  destruction,  for  he  died  under 
Nero  at  least  four  years  before  ;  neither  did  he  expect  to,  for  he 
says:  "  The  time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand."  He  stands, 
as  it  were,  between  two  worlds,  and  takes  a  pleasing  retrospect 
of  his  Christian  and  ministerial  fidelity.  He  then  looks  forward 
with  eagerness  to  the  judgment  after  death,  where  his  fidelity 
would  be  rewarded  with  a  crown  of  righteousness.  Thus  he 
connects  the  present  with  his  future  state,  for  it  is  death  that  he 
anticipates,  and  he  is  ready  to  be  offered.  How  false  the  notion 
that  our  conduct  here  affects  not  our  future  condition.  (Sec. 
XXVI.) 

Since  writing  the  foregoing,  a  book  has  come  to  hand  entitled 
"  The  Future  Life,"  by.  J.  Harris,  containing  the  last  edition 
of  the  Universalist  perversion  of  this  text.  Speaking  of  the 
crown  upon  which  the  apostle  had  his  eye,  he  says  :  "  We  need 
not  wonder  that  St.  Paul  should  expect,  after  having  fought  his 
battles  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  to  have  his  name  written  high  on 
the  records  of  the  church."  Page  191. 

Posthumous  honors,  a  great  name  in  this  world  after  death, 
then,  was  what  the  apostle  aspired  to.  His  ambition  "  to  have 
his  name  written  high  on  the  records  of  the  church,"  was  what 
prompted  him  to  sacrifice  and  suffer  so  much ;  this  was  the 
crown  of  glory  he  had  in  view  !  But  this  crown  was  not  only 
for  him,  but  for  all  those  who  "  love  his  appearing."  Hundreds 
of  his  fellow  Christians  loved  the  appearing  of  Christ  too,  and 
of  course  were  all  entitled  to  a  crown.  But  do  all  of  their 
names  appear  high  on  the  records  of  the  church  ?  But  very 
few  of  them  appear  at  all  on  the  record.  What  an  abominable 
-perversion ! 


Sec.   58.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  135 

LYIII.  "And  as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness,  temper 
ance,  and  judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled."  Acts  24  :  25. 

Upon  this  text  Mr.  Whittemore  inquires,  "  Does  the  passage 
say  this  judgment  was  to  come  in  the  future  state  ?  No." 
What  paltry  quibbling  this,  well  befitting  the  cause  it  is  designed 
to  support.  So  a  future  judgment  is  not  meant  in  the  text 
because  the  exact  expression,  "future  state  "  is  not  appended. 
Can  Mr.  W.  cite  us  to  a  passage  in  the  scriptures  where  it  says 
in  so  many  words,  that  all,  or  even  any,  men  shall  be  saved  in 
the  future  state  ?  No.  Is  there  therefore  no  future  salvation 
taught  in  the  Bible  ?  Mr.  W.  fails  to  inform  us  what  judgment 
is  meant,  but  turns  us  over  to  Mr.  Balfour.  We  take  up  Mr. 
B.'s  Essays  and  find  eight  pages  filled  with  his  learned  parade 
to  show  that  Paul  reasoned  of  the  judgment  about  to  come  upon 
the  Jewish  nation.  A  sad  announcement  that  to  a  Roman  gov 
ernor.  No  wonder  that  he  trembled  to  hear  that  the  enemies  of 
Rome  should  be  conquered,  and  their  proud  city  destroyed  !  We 
leave  the  text  with  the  common  sense  of  the  reader  without  fur 
ther  remark. 

LTX.  "  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness,"  &c. 
"  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish 
without  law  ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law,  shall  be 
judged  by  the  law, —  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  gospel" 
Rom  2  : 4-16. 

The  falsity  of  refering  this  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jews,  as 
Mr.  Whittemore  has  done,  (Guide,  p.  179,)  is  apparent  from 
the  fact  that  this  was  addressed  to  converted  Jews  and  Gentiles 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  miles  from  Jerusalem  ;  and  of  course 
Christians  so  remote  could  have  but  little  to  fear  from  its  de 
struction.  Paul  speaks  of  a  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God,"  (ver.  5,)  which  is  not  only  gen 
eral  but  particular.  "  To  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,'' 
to  those  Christians  who  continued  in  well  doing,  "  eternal  life." 


136  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

But  to  those  who  should  apostatize,  "  who  are  contentious  and 
obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and 
wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish."  Yer.  8  and  9.  But  what 
had  Christians  at  Rome  to  fear  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem,  even  though  they  should  apostatize  and  obey  not  the  truth  ? 
Or  had  they  anything  to  fear  from  the  Roman  government  in 
case  they  renounced  their  Christian  faith  ?  It  would  have  been 
the  most  ready  way  to  have  secured  its  favor,  as  all  know  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  those  times.  The  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  was  a  judgment  upon  the  Jews,  as  Universalists 
assert.  Now  as  if  the  apostle  foresaw  that  some  might  pervert 
his  words  by  applying  them  to  the  Jewish  calamity,  he  declares 
that  the  rendering  of  which  he  speaks  should  bo  made  not  only 
to  the  Jews,  but  "  ALSO  TO  THE  GENTILES."  Ver.  9 
and  10.  This  thought  itself  shows  the  glaring  perversion  of 
the  passage  by  Universalists.  In  this  day  of  judgment,  those 
who  had  not  the  written  law,  heathens,  are  to  be  judged.  Ver. 
12-16.  But  heathens,  as  we  have  seen,  were  not  judged  at 
Jerusalem.  The  apostle  is  treating  upon  the  same  day  of  judg 
ment  he  is  in  chap.  14  :  10-12.  (Sec.  LXI.) 

LX.  "  Some  men's  sins  are  open  beforehand,  going  before 
to  judgment;  and  some  men  they  follow  after."  1  Tim. 
5:24. 

Taking  the  position  that  no  sinner  is  punished  beyond  this 
life,  (Sec.  XLIX.)  Universalists  have  never  been  able  to  meet 
the  argument  against  that  view,  drawn  from  the  fact  that  some 
die  in  the  act  of  sinning.  (Sec.  XL VI.)  To  escape  the  diffi 
culty,  a  flippant  use  is  occasionally  made  of  this  text  to  give  the 
impression  that  God  can  and  does  punish  sin,  sometimes,  at 
least,  before  it  is  committed.  We  shall  now  show  the  unsound- 
ness  of  this  position.  If  God  punishes  sin  before  it  is  commit- 
ed,  then  the  divine  administration  becomes  indebted  to  the  sin 
ner,  and  he  has  the  right,  and  can  demand  the  privilege,  of 
shining  as  much  as  he  has  been  punished  for.  There  is  no 


Sec.   60.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  137 

evaiding  this,  if  justice  is  connected  with  the  divine  administra 
tion.  Now  as  this  involves  an  absurdity  not  to  be  conceived  of 
in  the  administration  of  a  wise  and  holy  God,  the  doctrine  which 
produces  such  a  conclusion  must  be  false.  Every  discerning 
mind  must  see  that  such  a  view  is  contrary  to  all  just  concep 
tions  of  human  or  divine  law,  and  that  none  but  those  who  are 
hard  pushed  with  truth  will  have  recource  to  so  miserable  a  sub- 
terfuge. 

Again  :  "We  are  frequently  told  that  there  is  no  future  pun 
ishment,  because  punishment  is  consequential  and  is  inseparable 
from  sin.  But  if  sin  is  prepunished,  then  is  the  punishment 
seperate  from  the  sin,  which  contradicts  a  very  essential  doctrine 
of  American  Universalism.  We  are  told  of  the  hell  of  con 
science.  But  how  can  men  suffer  in  their  consciences  for  sins 
not  committed,  and  of  which  they  can  have  no  conceptions? 
The  passage  at  the  head  of  this  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
infliction  of  God's  penalties  upon  sinners.  Paul  is  giving  direc 
tion  respecting  appointing  men  to  the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry, 
and  says,  ver.  22  :  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither 
be  partaker  of  other  men's  sins,"  i.  e.,  by  inducting  improper 
men  into  the  sacred  office.  He  then  says,  ver.  24  :  "  Some 
men's  sins  are  open  beforehand,"  &c.  Upon  this,  Dr.  Clarke 
gives  the  following  :  "In  appointing  men  to  sacred  offices  in  the 
church,  among  the  candidates  Timothy  would  find, — 

"  1.  Some  of  whom  he  knew  nothing,  but  only  that  they 
professed  Christianity.  Let  such  be  tried  before  they  are 
appointed . 

"2.  Some,  of  whose  faith  and  piety  he  had  the  fullest  knowl 
edge  ;  and  whose  usefulness  in  the  church  was  well  known. 

"  3.  Some,  whose  lives  were  not  all,  or  but  partially  reformed  ; 
who  were  still  unchanged  in  their  hearts,  and  unholy  in  their 
lives. 

"  The  sins  of  these  latter  were  known  to  all ;  they  go  before  to 
judgment ;  with  them  he  could  have  no  difficulty ;  there  might 
8* 


138  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

have  been  hypocrites  among  them,  whose  sins  could  not  be 
known  till  after  they  were  brought  into  the  sacred  office.  The 
characters  of  all  should  be  fully  investigated.  The  sins  of  some, 
before  this  investigation,  might  be  so  manifest  as  to  lead  at  once 
to  condemnation.  The  sins  of  others  might  be  found  out  after, 
or  in  consequence  of,  this  investigation :  and  those  that  were 
otherwise  could  not  be  long  hid  from  his  knowledge,  or  the 
knowledge  of  the  church.  On  all  these  accounts  the  exhortation 
is  necessary,  '  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.' '  Clarke  in 
loco. 

LXI.  "  Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name :  that  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee,  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things 
in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father."  Phil.  2  :  9-11 ;  Rom.  14  : 10-12  ;  Isa.  45  : 
23-25. 

This  text  seems  to  be  relied  on  with  the  greatest  confidence 
to  prove  Universalism.  But  why  do  those  who  use  it  give  us  no 
light  on  its  parallel,  found  Eom.  14  : 10-12  ?  It  reads  thus  : 
"  But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  why  dost  thou  set 
at  nought  thy  brother  ?  for  we  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg 
ment  seat  of  Christ.  For  it  is  written,  as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord, 
every  knee  shall  bow  to  me  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to 
God.  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  an  account  of  himself 
to  God."  These  texts  are  quotations  of  Isa.  45  :  23-25.  "  I 
have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in 
righteousness,  and  shall  not  return,  That  unto  me  every  knee 
shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear.  Surely  shall  one  say,  in 
the  Lord  have  I  righteousness  and  strength  ;  even  to  him  shall 
men  come ;  and  all  that  are  incensed  against  him  shall  be 
ashamed.  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justified, 
and  shall  glory."  The  passage  in  Romans  is  a  more  full  quota- 


Sec.   61.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  139 

tion  of  the  prophet  than  the  one  in  Philippians  as  the  following 
comparison  will  show  : 


JSAIAH. 

"  I  have  sworn  by  my 


self.' 
bow.' 


Every  knee    shall 

Every  tongue    shall 
swear." 

"Even  to  him  shall  men 
come." 


ROMANS. 

"  As  I  live  saith  the 
Lord." 

Every   knee    shall 

"  Every  tongue  shall 
confess." 

"  For  we  must  all  ap 
pear  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ." 


bow.' 


THILIPPIANS. 


"Every  knee  shall 
bow." 

"  Every  tongue  shall 
confess." 


We  examine  four  volumes  of  Universalist  books,  each  with  a 
copious  index  of  texts  ;  but  they  furnish  no  light  upon  the  pas 
sage  in  Romans,  while  the  passage  in  Philippians  is  never  omit- 
ed.  "We  take  up  the  Guide,  look  at  the  index,  and  are  referred 
to  p.  186  ;  turn  to  it,  and  are  put  off  with  the  author's  sophistry 
on  2  Cor.  5  :  10.  Now,  why  this  concealment  of  the  passage  in 
Romans  ?  It  is  doubtless  seen  by  these  men  that  if  it  is  brought 
out  in  connection  with  its  parallel  in  Philippians  it  will  destroy 
all  their  capital,  by  teaching  a  future  judgment.  Universalist 
writers  unhesitatingly  refer  the  passage  in  Philippians  to  the 
future  state,  for  it  is  in  the  resurrection  state  that  all,  as  they 
say,  are  to  be  saved.  We  also  admit  its  future  state  reference. 
But  it  bears  no  mark  of  a  future  reference  that  the  text  in  Ro 
mans  does  not.  Universalist  reader,  be  honest  with  yourself  in 
this  business.  Remember  that  there  is  a  reason  why  the  leaders 
in  your  order  maintain  a  dead  silence  respecting  the  last  named 
text.  They  have  labored  to  make  you  believe  in  no  future 
judgment;  and  then  that  Isa.  45  :  23-25,  and  Phil.  2  :  9,  11 
teach  the  salvation  of  all  in  the  future  world.  But  the  truth 
is,  Isa.  45  :  23-25,  Rom.  14  : 10-12,  and  Phil.  2  :  9-10  are 
co-relative  passages,  and  if  one  is  referable  to  a  future  state,  all 
are,  and  then  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ  is  in  the  future  state  ; 
while  on  the  other  hand  if  the  judgment  named  is  referable  to 
Jerusalem's  destruction,  or  any  calamity  in  this  world,  the 
bowing  and  confessing  named  is  confined  to  this  world,  and 
the  passages  in  Isa.  and  Phil,  can  no  longer  be  pressed  into  the 
service  of  Universalism.  Paul  says  in  Romans:  "We  shall 


140  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

all  stand  before  the  judgement  seat  of  Christ."  Question  : 
How  do  you  know  this,  Paul  ?  Answer  :  "  It  is  written,  (Isa. 
45  :  23,)  as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  every  knee  shall  bow  to  me, 
and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God.  So,  then,  every  one  of 
us  shall  give  an  account  of  himself  to  God."  Thus  the  apostle 
quotes  Isaiah  in  proof  of  a  future  judgment.  As  this  may  meet 
the  eye  of  one  of  the  few,  who,  like  Murray,  admit  of  a  future 
judgment,  but  conclude  that  universal  salvation  is  indicated  at 
that  time,  a  few  thoughts  will  now  be  offered  upon  some  points 
relied  upon.  Stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  universality  of  the 
language,  "  every  knee  shall  bow,"  &c.  That  all  shall  bow  to 
Christ's  authority  in  the  judgment,  we  believe,  whether  willing 
or  not ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  shall  be  saved.  But 
it  is  said,  Isa.  45  :  24,  "  Every  tongue  shall  swear."  Some 
have  concluded  from  this  that  all  will  swear  allegiance  to  Christ 
and  yield  him  a  willing  obedience ;  but  this  is  all  assumption. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  for  the  word  swear,  Paul  substi 
tutes  the  word  confess  in  both  of  his  quotations.  All  in  the  day 
of  judgment  will  confess  Christ's  Lordship  and  the  justice  of  his 
decisions  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  who  hath  submitted  to 
him  this  judgment.  They  will  also  confess  their  course  of  life 
to  him.  "  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  an  account  of 
himself  to  God."  The  devil  once  confessed  Christ,  (Mark 
1  :  24)  ;  but  this  was  no  evidence  of  his  holiness  and  happiness. 
"  All  that  are  incensed  against  him  shall  be  ashamed."  May 
not  wicked  persons  be  ashamed  of  conduct  they  still  persist  in. 
"  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justified,  and  shall 
glory."  Universalism  says,  "  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  human 
race  be  justified,  and  shall  glory."  The  prophet  contradicts  this 
by  confining  the  blessings  to  "  THE  SEED  OF  ISRAEL." 
If  reference  is  had  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Israel,  then  all 
men  are  not  included ;  and  if  to  his  spiritual  seed,  which  is 
doubtless  the  fact,  then  all  are  not  embraced,  but  only  believers 
in  Christ,  Horn.  9:6;  Gal.  3  :  7,  29.  Instead  of  universal 
salvation,  a  universal  judgment  is  taught,  when  all  shall  be 


Sec.  62.]  UNIVEKSALISM   NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  141 

obliged  to  confess  the  justness  of  its  decisions  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father.  But  how  can  it  be  for  the  glory  of  the  Father 
if  all  are  not  saved  ?  We  answer :  In  the  same  way  that  an 
earthly  government  is  glorified  by  the  righteous  decision  of  its 
courts,  and  the  just  execution  of  its  penalties. 

One  thought  more.  Um'versalists  sometimes  tell  us  that  the 
change  by  which  all  are  to  be  saved,  will  take  place  "  in  a  mo 
ment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,"  that  "  there  will  be  no  con 
dition  for  man  in  the  future  state,  but  that  in  which  he  will  be 
as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven/'  Balfour's  Essay,  p.  192. 
Trumpet,  No.  679.  Yet  by  the  use  they  make  of  two  of  the 
foregoing  passages  they  teach  us  that  men  in  the  future  state 
will  bow  the  knee,  swear  allegiance,  be  incensed,  be  ashamed, 
&c.,  &c.  The  reader  must  reconcile  these  as  he  best  can. 
On  confessing  at  the  judgment,  see  a  quotation  from  Josephus, 
in  Sec.  XLI. 

LXII.  "  For  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  of  them  unto 
the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord"  Jer.  31  :  33,  34. 

In  this  chapter  the  Prophet  is  speaking  of  the  superior  advan 
tages  of  the  Christian  dispensation  over  the  Jewish,  and  of  the 
spiritual  blessings  secured  by  the  new  covenant.  See  context, 
also  Hebrews,  8th  chapter.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  word 
all  occurs  in  the  text,  and  this  is  enough  for  Universalist  ex 
pounders  to  seize  it,  and  declare  that  it  teaches  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  eternity  !  "In  regard  to  the  future  condition  of 
mankind,  the  Bible  declares  explicitly,  that  all  shall  ultimately 
know  God,  'from  the  least  to  the  greatest.'  Jer.  31:34." 
Guide,  p.  270.  This  is  a  perversion.  The  covenant  is  not 
made  with  all  men  but  with  "  the  house  of  Israel,"  v.  33,  and 
the  prosperous  state  of  things  named  is  not  predicated  of  all  men 
in  eternity,  but  of  the  seed  of  Israel  in  this  world,  where  it  is 
possible  for  them  to  "cease  to  be  a  nation  before  the  Lord," 
v.  36.  The  triumphs  of  Christianity  are  predicted  here  in  the 
world,  and  God's  true  Israel  will  enjoy  the  blessings  named. 
Kom.  2:29;  John  1;  47;  Bom.  9:6. 


142  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

LXIII.  "  But  the  way  of  transgressors  is  hard."  Prov. 
13:15. 

Often  has  it  been  proclaimed  that  the  teachings  of  Christian 
ministers  tend  to  immorality,  because  they  instruct  the  people 
that  sin  is  pleasurable,  and  thus  lead  men  to  seek  pleasure  in 
sin ;  while  Universalist  ministers  are  the  only  true  reformers, 
because  they  teach  that  the  way  of  transgressors  is  hard.  The 
manner  in  which  this  is  often  done,  amounts  to  a  gross  libel  on 
Christian  ministers,  as  their  constant  hearers  know  full  well. 
(Sec.  XL VI.)  The  gospel  minister  has  at  his  command  all  the 
motives  a  Universalist  can  possibly  urge  drawn  from  the  effects 
of  sin  in  this  life ;  and  in  addition  to  these  he  has  the  powerful 
motive  to  urge  of  the  fearful  retributions  of  eternity.  But 
while  he  shows  the  effects  of  sin  upon  the  sinner  here,  and  that 
on  a  comparative  view  there  is  no  true  and  lasting  peace  to  the 
wicked,  he  feels  not  at  liberty  to  proclaim  that  there  is  absolutely 
no  pleasure  in  sin, — for  this  would  not  only  contradict  the  Bible, 
but  the  experience  of  every  sinner ;  hence,  he  points  out  sinful 
pleasures,  exposes  their  delusive  character  and  ruinous  effects, 
and  labors  to  dissuade  all,  and  especially  the  young,  from  follow 
ing  them.  The  man  of  observation,  acquainted  with  his  Bible 
and  capable  of  reflection,  knows  that  in  man's  depraved  state, 
there  are  many  sins  committed  for  the  sake  of  the  sensual  pleas 
ure  derived  from  the  act.  If  Universalists  choose  to  take  the 
position  that  there  is  no  pleasure  in  sin,  why,  then  they  are  only 
at  their  own  business  —  arraying  themselves  against  common 
sense  and  the  Bible.  See  Heb.  11  :  25  ;  2  Thess.  2  : 12 ; 
Prov.  4:16. 

We  subjoin  the  following,  from  the  pen  of  another.  "  Those 
who  believe  in  future  and  eternal  judgment,  regard  the  ways  of 
the  transgressor  as  hard  indeed,  involved  as  those  ways  are  in 
darkness  here,  and  terminating  as  they  do  in  '  everlasting  de 
struction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  the  glory  of  his 
power.'  But  if  Universalism  be  true,  the  ways  of  the  trans 
gressor  are  not  so  very  hard  ;  they  are  quite  tolerable.  A  Uni- 


SeC.  64.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  143 

versalist  conscience,  benumbed  with  fatality  and  seared  with 
guilt,  and  case-hardened  by  an  almost  total  absence  of  a  sense  of 
accountability,  cannot  be  supposed  to  give  the  transgressor  a  very 
serious  annoyance  in  his  ways,  especially  if  he  be  strong  in  the 
faith  that  a  life  of  pleasure,  infamy  and  guilt,  will  inevitably  ter 
minate  in  glory.  It  will  be  a  hard  task  to  persuade  such  an  one 
that  '  all  is  (not)  well  that  ends  well.' '  fiussett. 

LXIV.   "  Concerning  this  sect,  we  know  that  every  where  it 
is  spoken  against."     Acts  28  :  22. 

The  primitive  church,  in  its  purity,  met  with  general  opposi 
tion  from  wicked  men ;  and  Universalists,  because  their  system 
is  extensively  opposed  by  good  men,  labor  to  make  the  impres 
sion  that  they  are  the  only  true  successors  of  the  apostolic  church  ! 
To  effect  this,  they  avail  themselves  of  this  text.  Universalism 
is  extensively  opposed,  not  by  the  wicked,  for  it  meets  their  de 
sires,  and  administers  to  them  an  opiate ;  but  by  Christians  gen 
erally.  And  is  the  opposition  of  the  mass  of  enlightened  Chris 
tians,  many  of  them  possessing  the  best  heads  and  hearts  the 
world  has  ever  seen,  to  be  taken  as  evidence  of  the  purity  and 
truthfulness  of  that  which  they  oppose  ?  While  it  is  true,  as  a 
general  thing,  that  the  wicked  do  oppose  that  which  is  religiously 
good,  it  is  also  true  that  we  are  not  safe  in  considering  a  thing 
good  merely  because  it  is  extensively  opposed,  even  by  wicked 
men.  Look  at  the  Mormon  delusion.  Sure  we  are  that  no  sect 
in  our  country,  in  the  nineteenth  century  at  least,  has  suffered 
more  by  persecution  from  wicked  men  than  the  Mormons.  But 
is  this  to  be  taken  as  evidence  of  the  purity  of  their  lives,  and 
the  truthfulness  of  their  system  ?  Universalists  have  never  suf 
fered  a  tithe  of  persecution  compared  with  th#  followers  of  Joe 
Smith ;  neither  have  they  suffered  anything  compared  with  the 
Baptists,  Puritans,  and  Methodists.  These  have  all  seen  the 
time  when  each  could  say,  "  we  are  the  sect  everywhere  spoken 
against."  Indeed,  so  far  are  Universalists  from  being  the  per 
secuted,  that  they  have  persecuted  others.  (Sec.  CXIX.) 


144  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Reader,  when  you  hear  a  zealous  disciple  claiming  apostolic  suc 
cession  for  Universalism  from  this  text,  just  ask  him  if  the  Mor 
mons  have  not  a  claim  equally  good. 

LXV.  "And  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him"  Heb.  5  :  9. 

Does  this  text  sound  like  Universalism  ?  That  declares  that 
all  shall  have  eternal  salvation,  whether  they  obey  Christ  or  not. 
But  the  apostle,  speaking  of  moral  agents  under  the  gospel,  con 
fines  this  salvation  to  such  as  OBEY  Christ.  Which  shall  we 
follow,  Universalism  or  the  Bible  ?  And  then,  again,  Univer- 
salists  deny  that  Christ  is  the  author  of  future  salvation.  He 
came  not  to  provide  it,  but  to  proclaim  it,  is  the  doctrine.  See 
Sec.  XXIX. 

LXVI.  "  For  if  we  sin  wilfully,  after  that  we  have  received 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  &c.  Heb.  10  :  26-31.  ' 

This  passage  evidently  teaches  the  doctrine  of  future  retribu 
tion.  Death  without  mercy  can  be  considered  in  no  other  light 
than  the  severest  of  temporal  punishments.  But  the  text  threat 
ens  a  sorer  punishment  even  than  "death  without  mercy." 
What  will  Universalists  do  with  this  ?  Do  with  it  ?  Why, 
throw  it  into  Jerusalem's  destruction,  the  common  receptacle  of 
all  stubborn  texts.  Guide,  p  104.  How  absurd  !  What 
evidence  had  the  apostle  that  all  or  any  of  the  Christians  who 
might  apostatize  then,  should  live  and  be  present  to  suffer  by 
the  Romans  at  Jerusalem  ?  Just  none  at  all.  This  epistle 
bears  date  A.D.  64,  six  years  before  Titus  came  against  the 
Jews,  and  was  addressed  to  Hebrew  Christians  who  were  scat 
tered  all  over  the  Roman  Empire.  And  then  he  does  that 
which  is  a  great  abomination  in  the  eyes  of  Universalist  divines, 
for  he  appeals  to  the  fears  of  Christians,  to  save  them  from  apos 
tasy.  Hear  him.  "  For  we  know  him  that  hath  said,  Ven 
geance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord." 
So  there  is  something  in  the  Divine  administration  called  VEN- 


Sec.  67.]  UNIVEKSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  145 

GEANCE.  How  unlike  Universalist  teachings  is  this  !  What 
would  be  thought  of  a  preacher  of  that  order  who  should  urge  the 
vengeance  of  God  as  a  motive  to  move  his  hearers?  (Sec.  LXIX.) 
And  how  long  would  his  people  employ  him  as  their  teacher  ? 
Again,  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living 
God,"  v.  31.  But  why  a  fearful  thing,  if  "  a  just  punishment 
is  as  essential  for  our  welfare  as  anything  that  love  can  do?  " 
Why  should  the  most  vile  apostate  of  our  race  fear  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  living  God,  if  all  are  to  be  taken  to  heaven, 
irrespective  of  character  here  ?  Paul,  in  the  passage,  shows  the 
possibility  and  awful  consequences  of  apostasy,  and  solemnly 
appeals  to  their  fears  respecting  the  future  ;  after  which  he  ap 
peals  to  their  hopes  and  consciousness  concerning  the  faithful 
Christian's  reward  in  heaven.  He  reminds  them  of  their  former 
sufferings  and  sacrifices,  and  says  ;  "  For  ye  had  compassion  of 
me  in  my  bonds,  and  took  joyfully  of  the  spoiling  of  your  goods, 
knowing  in  yourselves  that  ye  have  in  heaven  a  better  and  endur 
ing  substance.  Cast  not  away,  therefore,  your  confidence,  which 
hath  great  recompense  of  reward.  For  ye  have  need  of  patience ; 
that,  after  ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  might  receive  the 
promise,"  v.  34,  35,  36.  Here  it  will  be  seen  that  heaven, 
with  its  better  and  enduring  substance,  is  presented  as  the  result 
of  their  Christian  fidelity.  Read  the  chapter  from  v.  24  to  v. 
36,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  it  lies  with  mighty  weight  against 
more  points  than  one  of  modern  Universalism. 

LXVII.  "  For  as  the  rain  cometh  down,  and  the  snow  from 
heaven,  and  returneth  not  thither,"  &c.  Isa.  55  :  10,  11. 

In  their  very  frequent  use  of  this  passage,  Universalists  always 
assume  the  very  point  in  debate,  namely,  that  it  is  the  pleasure 
or  purpose  of  God  to  save  all  men  unconditionally  in  the  future 
state.  This  we  deny,  for  whatever  the  work  to  be  accomplished 
by  this  "  word,"  or  wherever  done,  one  thing  is  evident,  which 
is,  that  its  benefits  are  only  to  be  received  upon  conditions. 
This  is  clear,  not  only  from  the  context,  (verses  6  and  7,)  but 


146  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

from  tlie  figure  employed  in  the  passage.  Observe,  it  is  "  as 
the  rain,"  "  so  shall  my  word  be."  Is  it  the  purpose  of  God, 
in  sending  the  rain,  to  give  the  fruits  of  the  earth  to  all  men, 
whether  they  till  it  or  not?  By  no  means.  But  it  is  to  "  give 
seed  to  the  sower,"  &c.  There  is  no  need  of  enlargement  here. 
But  what  is  God's  word  here  spoken  of,  and  is  it  to  accomplish 
the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future  state,  according  to  Univer- 
salist  expositions  of  scripture  ?  God's  word  mentioned  in  this 
passage,  says  Mr.  Whittemore,  is  the  gospel.  Guide,  p.  40. 
Well,  what  is  the  gospel?  It  is  not  the  salvation  of  all  men 
in  the  future  state,  but  is  simply  the  good  news  or  glad  tidings 
which  announces  the  fact  that  all  will  be  saved.  So  say  Uni- 
versalists.  The  gospel,  according  to  their  notions,  is  perfectly 
independent  of  the  salvation  of  'men  in  the  future  state,  just  as 
much  so,  as  announcing  the  fact  that  there  is  such  a  place  as 
London,  is  independent  of  that  fact.  It  is  contended  that  gos 
pel  salvation  is  the  effects  experienced  in  this  life  of  believing 
the  doctrine,  that  all  will  be  saved  hereafter,  and  that  preaching, 
receiving,  or  rejecting  the  gospel,  will  not  affect  our  future  salva 
tion  in  the  least.  Mr.  Whittemore  ridicules  the  idea  of  man's 
conduct  being  recompensed  in  a  future  state,  and  says,  it  "is 
alike  reasonable  with  saying,  that  a  man  who  sows  a  field  of 
grain  in  Massachusetts,  shall  reap  the  harvest  from  it  in  the 
State  of  Ohio."  Trumpet,  No.  635.  By  the  way,  we  suppose 
it  is  very  reasonable  to  him  for  a  man  to  sow  a  field  of  grain  and 
reap  the  crop  just  as  quick  as  he  has  sown  it !  In  other  words, 
it  is  quite  clear  to  him,  that  men  are  punished  for  their  sins  as 
soon  as  they  commit  them.  (Sec.  XLIX.) 
From  the  preceding  we  learn  as  follows  : 

1.  The  word  that  goeth  forth,  and  is  to  accomplish  that  which 
the  Almighty  pleases,  is  the  gospel,  i.e.,  the  good  news  of  the 
salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future  state. 

2.  This  gospel,  or  good  news,  is  independent  of  what  it  de 
clares,  and  does  not  in  the  least  affect  the  future  condition  of  any 
man,  as  all  will  be  saved  in  the  future  state,  whether  they  hear 


Sec.  68.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  147 

the  good  news  in  this  life  or  not.  It  is  seen,  then,  that  accord 
ing  to  Mr.  Whittemore's  own  showing,  the  declared  prosperity 
of  the  word  or  gospel  named  in  the  passage,  does  not  secure  the 
salvation  of  all  or  any  men  in  the  future  state.  Yet,  when  it 
will  serve  his  purpose,  he  can  give  it  a  future-state  reference, 
and  use  it  to  prove  Universalism,  as  he  has  done  on  pp.  29  and 
40  of  his  Guide.  And  thus  the  Scriptures  are  perverted,  and 
the  people  deceived.  If  there  is  a  jingle  of  words,  if  perchance, 
there  is  universal  language  in  a  passage,  no  matter  what  it  was 
designed  to  teach,  or  what  its  connection,  no  matter  whether  it  is 
spoken  of  the  Jewish  nation,  or  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel  in 
this  world,  or  of  Christians  only  —  it  is  taken  and  connected, 
perhaps,  with  one  or  two  other  texts  equally  perverted,  and  thus 
a  Universalist  argument  is  made.  In  proof  of  this,  see  Mr. 
Whittemore's  "  One  Hundred  Arguments,"  which  are  wholly 
made  up  of  mangled  and  perverted  texts. 

The  design  to  be  accomplished  by  this  word  is  seen  in  the 
commission  given  by  Christ  himself  to  preach  it,  which  is  as  fol 
lows  :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  Mark  16  :  15,  16. 

LXVIII.  "  What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life"     Luke 

18:18. 

The  phrase  in  our  translation  rendered  eternal  life,  occurs 
twenty-seven  times  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  phrase  ren 
dered  everlasting  life  occurs  thirteen  times  ;  making  in  all  forty 
times,  all  of  which,  according  to  Universalist  writers,  mean  some 
thing  experienced  in  this  world.  Mr.  Whittemore  says  : 

"Notwithstanding  the  'everlasting  life'  spoken  of  in  the 
New  Testament  is  applied  in  these  pages  to  that  state  of  rest, 
purity  and  joy,  into  which  believers  of  the  gospel  entered  when 
ever  they  embraced  it,  the  author  takes  this  opportunity  to  say, 
that  he  undoubtingly  believes  that  a  future  state  of  immortality 
and  incorruption  is  revealed  in  the  New  Testament.  This,  like 


148  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  present  existence,  will  be  the  gift  of  God,  and  cannot,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  as  seems  to  us,  be  affected  by  the  conduct  of 
men  in  this  life."  Notes  on  Par.,  p.  354. 

Here  it  would  seem  that  Mr.  Whittemore  is  almost  startled  at 
his  own  sentiments,  and  lest  he  should  be  thought  an  infidel 
downright,  he  is  under  the  necessity  at  the  close  of  his  book,  of 
informing  his  readers  that  he  believes  that  a  future  state  is  taught 
in  the  New  Testament !  Again  he  says  : 

"  What  is  meant  by  eternal  life  ?  This  phrase  is  not  used  by 
the  sacred  writers  to  signify  endless  blessedness  beyond  the 
grave,  but  that  state  of  spiritual  life  and  peace  which  was  the 
immediate  effects  of  faith  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Guide,  p.  140. 

The  question  may  arise  in  the  reader's  mind,  why  it  is  that 
Universalists  should  desire  to  destroy  the  future-state  reference 
of  this  phrase  ?  It  is  because  it  stands  in  such  connections  in 
the  Bible,  that  if  it  is  admitted  to  mean  a  state  of  bliss,  it  con 
firms,  by  parity  of  reason,  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Whittemore,  in  the  Guide,  denies  the 
future-state  reference  of  the  expression  "  eternal  life,"  yet  such 
is  the  twistical  character  of  the  man  upon  this  subject,  that  he 
can,  in  this  same  Guide,  use  this  same  phrase,  "  eternal  life," 
four  times,  to  teach  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future  state  ! 
See  Guide,  pp.  25,  45,  46,  52.  How  long  would  these  men 
be  troubled  with  the  Bible  at  all,  were  they  left  to  themselves, 
and  the  world  sufficiently  prepared  for  them  to  destroy  it,  and 
substitute  one  of  their  own  inventing  ? 

All  true  believers  possess  the  seminal  principles  of  a  future 
blissful  life  in  this  world ;  and  in  view  of  it  the  inspired  pen 
men  use  the  phrase  "everlasting  life"  in  a  few  instances,  in 
this  sense,  as  in  John  5  :  24,  "  He  that  heareth  my  words,  and 
belie veth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life  ;  "  also  John 
6  :  47,  and  a  few  other  places.  Universalists  seize  hold  of  these, 
and  claim  the  right  to  interpret  all  the  rest  of  the  passages  where 
the  expression  occurs  by  them,  and  thus  deceive  the  people. 


Sec.  68.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BlfcLE.  149 

The  truth  is,  the  phrase,  primarily  and  properly,  means  a  life  of 
bliss  beyond  this.     This  is  evident, 

1.  From  Jewish  belief.     In  2   Mace.  7  :  9,  a  Jew  who  was 
put  to  death  for  refusing  to  eat  swine's  flesh,  says  to  his  mur 
derer,  "  Thou,  like  a  fury,  takest  us  out  of  this  present  life,  but 
the  King  of  the  world  shall  raise  us  up,  who  have  died  for  his 
laws,  unto  everlasting  life"     We  bring  this  simply  as  histori 
cal  evidence  of  what  the  Jews  believed  respecting  everlasting 
or  eternal  life.     It  bears  date  B.C.  167.     Again,  Josephus  in 
his  Discourse  on  Hades,  speaking  of  the  intermediate  state,  gives 
the  following  as  the  belief  of  the  Jews  :   "  But  the  countenance 
of  the  fathers  and  of  the  just  which  they  see,  always  smiles  upon 
them,  while  they  wait  for  that  rest,  and  eternal  new  life  in 
heaven,  which  is  to  succeed  this  region."     Now  in  the  light  of 
this  belief  of  the  Jews,  let  us  look  at  the  case  of  the  young  ruler. 
He  being  an  educated  Jew,  well  understood  Jewish  theology. 
His  question   is,   "What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?" 
The  Saviour  answers,  and  adds,   "  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure 
in  heaven"      This  answer  shows   most  conclusively  that   the 
Saviour  understood  him  to  be  anxious  about  his  future  state,  and 
that  "  treasure  in  heaven  "  is  synonymous  with  "  eternal  life." 

That  eternal  life  properly  means  a  life  beyond  this,  is  evident, 

2.  From   the  absurdities  involved  by  the  Universalist  inter 
pretation  of  the  phrase.     Let  us  take  two  or  three  of  these 
illustrations.     Matt.  25  :  46,  "  But  the  righteons  into  life  eter 
nal."      This,  we  are  told,    "is  that   spiritual   life  which   the 
believer  enjoys  in  this  state."     Notes  on  Par.,  p.  353.     Now 
the  righteous  must  be  already  spiritually  alive,  or  else  they  are 
not  righteous.     This  interpretation,  then  represents  the  judge  as 
sending  the  spiritually  alive  into  spiritual  life,  which  is  mani 
festly   absurd  ;    therefore,   cannot   be  the  true   interpretation. 
John  12  :  25,   "  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that 
hateth  his  life  in  this  world,  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal." 
Life  eternal,  in  this  text,  is  contrasted  with  life  in  this  world. 
Just  confine  the  meaning  of    "  life  eternal"  to  this  world,  and 


150  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  passage  is  reduced  to  this  absurdity  :  He  that  hateth  his  life 
in  this  world  shall  keep  it,  by  gaining,  by  the  loss  of  his  life, 
that  eternal  life  which  is  enjoyed  in  this  world.  Or,  in  other 
words,  after  he  is  dead  he  shall  come  back  and  enjoy  spiritual 
life  in  this  world  !  Is  it  said  that  the  expression  "  this  world  " 
means  "  this  age,"  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  Then 
we  may  read  it  thus  :  He  that  dies  before  the  destruction  of  Je 
rusalem,  shall  have  eternal  life  by  living  through  that  destruc 
tion  !  But  the  word  rendered  world  here,  is  not  aion,  which 
in  some  instances  means  "  age,"  but  kosmos,  the  most  appro 
priate  word  for  world.  (Sec.  XL) 

The  more  the  reader  thinks  upon  this  passage,  the  more  will 
he  see  the  violent  wresting  and  absurdity  of  those  who  confine 
the  phrase  "  eternal  life,"  to  the  spiritual  life  the  believer  enjoys 
in  this  world.  Take  one  text  more.  Titus  1:2,  "In  hope  of 
eternal  life,  which  God  that  cannot  lie,"  &c.  Here  Paul  repre 
sents  himself  as  hoping  for  eternal  life.  Hope  respects  the 
future.  Paul  was  a  holy  Christian,  and  of  course  already  spir 
itually  alive.  Now  if  eternal  life  means  spiritual  life  in  this 
world,  then  the  hope  of  Paul  implies  that  he  was  destitute  of 
spiritual  life,  for  what  a  man  has  in  his  possession  he  does  not 
hope  for.  Was  Paul  destitute  of  spiritual  life  at  this  time  ? 
Was  he  a  wicked  man  ? 

We  here  present  the  reader  with  an  entire  argument  from  Mr. 
Whittemore,  in  which  he  gives  the  expression  "  eternal  life"  a 
future-state  reference,  the  very  thing  he  denies  on  page  140  of 
the  same  book.  He  says,  "  The  record  which  God  hath  given 
of  his  Son,  is  this  :  '  That  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life  ; 
and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.'  1  John  5:11.  Is  this  record 
true  ?  It  surely  is,  Who  are  called  on  to  believe  it  ?  All  man 
kind.  If  any  man  believes  it  not,  he  makes  God  a  liar,  by  say 
ing  that  God's  record  is  not  true.  God,  then,  hath  certainly 
given  eternal  life  to  all  men,  in  his  divine  purpose."  Guide, 
p.  52.  This  is  one  of  Mr.  W.'s  One  Hundred  Arguments  to 
prove  Universalism,  i.  e.,  the  salvation  of  all  men  in  the  future 


Sec.  CO.]  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  151 

state  ;  and  thus  he  gives  the  phrase  eternal  life  a  future  refer 
ence.  Which  is  to  be  believed,  Mr.  W.  on  page  52,  or  Mr. 
W.  on  page  140  of  the  same  book  ?  If  he  is  correct  on  page 
140,  and  has  proved  anything  by  the  argument,  it  is  this  :  That 
God  hath  certainly  given  in  his  divine  purpose,  to  all  mankind, 
that  spiritual  life  and  peace  which  faith  in  the  gospel  imparts  in 
this  world  ?  As  matter  of  fact  shows  that  this  has  not  been 
accomplished,  neither  can  it  be,  it  is  hoped  we  shall  hear  no 
more  from  the  author  of  the  Guide  about  the  absolute  character 
of  the  divine  purposes.  But,  suppose  that  all  the  race  of  Adam 
were  in  possession  of  the  spiritual  life  and  peace  the  Gospel  im 
parts  in  this  world,  would  that  secure  them  bliss  in  eternity  ? 
By  no  means,  according  to  this  author ;  for,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  speaking  of  the  eternal  state  he  says,  it  "  cannot  in  the  nature 
of  things,  as  seems  to  us,  be  affected  by  the  conduct  of  men  in 
this  life."  Beware,  reader,  how  you  follow  such  a  crooked 
Guide.  In  the  text  pressed  into  this  argument,  the  apostle  says, 
"  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life."  This  is  spoken  of  believ 
ers,  and  not  of  all  men,  as  may  be  seen  by  v.  13.  See  also 
John  3  :  15. 

LXIX.  "  Fear  not,  little  flock  ;  for  it  is  your  Father's  good 
pleasure  to  give  you  the  kingdom."  Luke  12  :  32. 

Mr.  A.  B.  Grosh,  a  great  man,  an  editor  and  minister  in  the 
Universalist  order,  uses  this  text,  in  connection  with  several 
others  where  the  expression  "fear  not  "  is  found,  to  show  that 
men  are  not  to  be  moved  by  fear  "  to  repent  and  obey  the  com 
mands  of  God."  Of  the  Gospel,  he  says,  "  It  makes  its  first 
advances  to  the  world  of  sinners,  by  exhorting  them  to  "fear 
not."  To  substantiate  this,  and  to  show  that  none  have  any 
thing  to  fear,  he  quotes  the  expression  as  found  in  the  address 
to  the  shepherds,  Luke  2:10;  to  Mary,  Luke  1 :  30  ;  to  Zach- 
arias,  Luke  1:13;  to  Simon,  Luke  5  :  10 ;  to  the  disciples, 
Luke  12  :  32,  also  v.  7 ;  to  the  women  who  sought  the  Lord  at 
the  sepulchre,  Matt.  28  :  5 ;  and  also  what  the  Saviour  says  to 


152  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

John,  (Rev.  1  :  17,)  "  Fear  not;  I  am  the  first  and  the  last," 
&c.  He  will  have  it  that  those  who  teach  that  wicked  men 
ought  to  fear  in  view  of  God's  penalties,  are  opposed  to  Christ, 
who  said,  "  fear  not ;  "  and  says,  "  but  the  wisdom  of  this  world 
has  mingled  its  own  inventions  with  the  wisdom  from  on  high, 
and  fear,  fear,  FEAR,  is  the  grand  instrument  of  convicting  sin 
ners,  of  converting  them  to  the  church,  of  confirming  them  in  the 
faith,  and  of  keeping  them  steadfast  unto  the  end  of  their  pro 
fessions.  Fear  of  an  endless  hell  —  fear  of  an  almost  almighty 
fiend  — fear  of  the  censures  of  the  world  and  of  the  anathemas 
of  the  church  —  these  are  the  motives  principally  appealed  to  in 
our  days,  to  make  and  keep  people  religious."  p.  52.  With 
this  kind  of  cant  do  the  advocates  of  Universalism  labor  to  bring 
into  contempt  the  faithful  teachings  of  Christian  ministers. 

Taking  into  the  account  the  obvious  design  of  the  writer,  it 
stands  thus  :  The  scriptures  enjoin  upon  certain  persons,  respect 
ing  some  particular  subjects,  the  duty  to  "  fear  not ;  "  therefore 
all  wicked  and  ungodly  men  have  nothing  to  fear,  and  no  appeal 
should  be  made  to  their  fears  to  deter  them  from  sin !  But 
where,  we  ask,  is  it  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  that  wicked  men, 
while  continuing  in  their  sins,  have  nothing  to  fear  ?  Has  God 
ever  said  to  such,  "  fear  not  ?  "  Christians  are  complained  of 
because  they  would  have  men  fear  "an  endless  hell."  To  this 
we  plead  guilty,  but  find  ourselves  in  honorable  company. 
Christ  said  to  the  wicked,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of 
vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell."  Matt.  23  : 
33.  Here  is  an  appeal  direct  to  the  fears  upon  this  point,  by 
the  Son  of  God  himself.  Hear  him  again  ;  "  He  that  blasphem- 
eth  against  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in 
danger  of  eternal  damnation."  Mark  3  :  29.  Is  there  nothing 
to  be  feared  from  eternal  damnation  ?  This,  being  addressed  to 
Jews,  must  have  been  understood  by  them  to  mean  just  what 
it  seems  to  mean,  for  they  believed  in  eternal  damnation.  But 
men  are  made  to  fear  "  an  almost  almighty  fiend."  That  gos 
pel  ministers  strive  to  impress  men  with  a  sense  of  their  danger 


SeC.  69.]      UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.          153 

from  the  temptations  of  the  devil,  is  true  ;  and  that  there  is  such 
a  being,  with  subordinates,  may  be  seen  by  turning  to  Sec. 
XCVIII.  They  are  made  to  fear  "  the  censures  of  the  world." 
This  is  false,  as  all  know  who  sit  under  the  Christian  ministry. 
With  great  unanimity  they  urge  their  hearers  to  embrace  Christ, 
regardless  alike  of  the  frowns  and  flatteries  of  the  world.  Fear  of 
"  the  anathemas  of  the  Church."  That  Christians  are  instructed 
by  their  teachers  to  fear  to  violate  their  voluntary  obligations  to 
the  church,  we  admit.  Since  Universalists  now  form  some  asso 
ciations  they  call  churches,  what  do  they  teach  concerning  such 
obligations  ?  Do  they  teach  their  members  to  "fear  not  "  to  vio 
late  ?  It  is  complained  that  fear  is  the  grand  instrument  in 
"keeping  them  steadfast  unto  the  end."  That  the  fears  of 
Christians  are  appealed  to  frequently  in.  the  Bible,  is  most  obvi 
ous.  When  the  sinner  embraces  the  gospel,  he  is  not  freed 
from  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life,  but  strength  is  imparted  by  the 
gospel,  to  assist  the  better  to  keep  the  law.  Every  law  for  the 
regulation  of  human  conduct  has  a  penalty  ;  for,  to  talk  of  law 
without  a  penalty,  is  a  solecism.  Every  penalty  is  an  appeal  to 
the  fears  of  those  who  are  bound  to  obey  ;  and  although  the 
Christian  is  delivered  from  the  fear  of  the  penalty  for  sins  that 
are  past,  by  his  justification,  yet  he  is  to  fear  to  violate  the  law 
in  future,  lest  the  apostate's  hell  be  his  doom.  Hence  the  pro 
priety  of  appealing  to  the  fears,  not  only  of  unrenewed  persons, 
but  of  Christians.  Says  Paul,  "  Let  us  therefore  fear,  lest,  a 
promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should 
seem  to  come  short  of  it."  Heb.  4:1.  This  was  addressed  to 
Christians.  The  Saviour  enjoins  fear  upon  his  disciples.  "  Fear 
not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul ; 
but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body 
in  hell.  Matt.  10  :  28.  See  also  Heb.  10  :  26-31.  We 
should  be  obliged  to  transcribe  no  small  portion  of  the  Bible, 
were  we  to  present  all  the  passages  where  the  fears  of  the 
wicked  are  appealed  to,  and  where  fear  is  enjoined  as  a  Chris 
tian  duty.  Yet  Universalism  stands  up  in  the  face  of  all  this, 
9 


154  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

and  cries,  "  FEAR  NOT  !  "  We  must  admit,  however,  that 
at  least  in  this,  it  is  consistent  with  itself;  for  if  "  all  the  judg 
ments  of  which  the  scriptures  speak,  are  to  destroy  sin,  and 
reform  the  sinner,"  and  if  "no  more  punishment  will  be  in 
flicted  than  the  good  of  the  sinner  requires,"  (  U.  III.  3?  Def., 
pp.  248,  195,)  why  should  any,  enlightened  by  the  luminous 
rays  of  Universalism,  ever  fear  the  penalty  of  God's  law  ?  What 
should  we  think  of  a  dying  man  who  should  fear  to  take  a  medi 
cine  he  knew  would  cure  him  even  though  it  were  somewhat  dis 
agreeable?  We  say,  then,  that  Universalism  is  consistent  with 
itself  upon  this  point ;  but  this  very  consistency  deprives  it  of 
the  character  of  a  Christian  system,  inasmuch  as  it  is  directly  at 
war  with  the  clear  and  evident  teachings  of  the  Bible.  The 
faithful  minister  uses  fear  as  a  motive,  because  the  Bible 
presents  it  as  such  ;  but  it  is  not  the  only  motive  with  him. 
He  urges  the  love  of  God  as  developed  in  the  gift  of  his  Son, 
and  the  gospel  provisions.  He  urges  the  goodness  of  God  as 
seen  in  his  mercy  towards  sinners,  and  'in  his  long  suffering  — 
bearing  with  sinners  long  when  they  deserve  punishment.  But 
he  appeals  to  the  fears  of  men  concerning  the  neglect  and  abuse 
of  these  blessings,  and  the  danger  consequent  upon  such  a  course. 
Noah  was  moved  by  fear  to  build  the  ark  (Heb.  11 :  7)  ;  and 
Christ,  as  we  have  seen,  inculcates  the  same  principle  upon  his 
disciples.  The  love  or  goodness  of  God,  it  is  admitted,  is  the 
most  noble  principle  ;  yet,  when  we  consider  the  fallen  nature  of 
man,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed,  fear  will  be 
seen  to  be  equally  necessary.  The  truth  is,  God's  government 
is  a  reign  of  terror  to  the  finally  impenitent,  and  this  by  Paul  is 
urged  as  a  motive  against  sin.  "  Knowing,  therefore,  the  ter 
rors  of  the  Lord,  we  persuade  men."  2  Cor.  5  : 11. 

"  It  is  a  question  of  vast  importance,  and  which  I  fear  minis 
ters  in  general  do  not  sufficiently  attend  to,  whether  the  love  or 
the  terror  of  God  operates  most  powerfully  at  first  on  the  minds 
of  sinners.  If  they  were  governed  by  their  reason,  there  would 
be  no  necessity  to  preach  the  terror  of  the  Lord  to  them ;  be- 


Sec.  70.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  155 

cause,  as  soon  as  they  perceived  that  their  interest  and  duty 
are  united,  they  would  begin  to  promote  the  one  by  the  practice 
of  the  other :  but  he  must  have  a  superficial  acquaintance  with 
men,  who  does  not  know  that,  in  general,  they  are  governed  by 
their  corrupt  passions  and  appetites,  in  opposition  to  the  dictates 
of  reason  and  religion.  The  privileges  of  religion  will  never 
operate  as  a  motive  on  corrupt  minds  to  practice  its  duties.  Tell 
them  about  the  comforts  of  the  Spirit ;  the  sweet  communion 
with  God  in  religious  exercises  ;  and  the  happiness  of  heaven,  as 
consisting  in  the  vision  of  God,  and  the  society  of  saints,  angels, 
and  Jesus  Christ ;  in  investigating  the  works  and  ways  of  God ; 
singing  his  praises ;  in  loving  and  serving  him  forevermore  ;  —  I 
say,  tell  them  of  these  things  ;  but,  since  they  have  no  disposi 
tion  to  enjoy  them,  they  will  express  no  desire  after  them.  You 
might  as  well  cast  pearls  before  swine.  The  temper  of  their 
minds  must  be  changed  before  such  motives  will  have  any  influ 
ence  upon  them.  Should  a  minister  neglect  to  address  the 
passion  of  fear,  by  leaving  out  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  he  may 
preach  the  love  of  God,  the  joys  of  heaven,  moral  virtue,  or 
what  he  pleases,  till  his  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth, 
without  converting  one  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  ways." 
Isaac. 

LXX.  "  Also  unto  thee,  0  Lord,  belongeth  mercy ;  for  thou 
renderest  unto  every  man  according  to  his  work"  Ps.  62  :  12. 

In  view  of  the  connection,  the  sense  of  the  text  is  this : 
Mercy  is  attributed  to  God,  because  he  would  deliver  his  people 
and  destroy  their  enemies  (v.  3-8)  ;  while  the  obstinately 
wicked,  who  delight  in  lies,  (v.  4,)  trust  in  oppression,  and  be 
come  vain  in  robbery,  (v.  10,)  shall  be  rewarded  according  to 
their  works.  This  scripture  is  often  perverted  to  show  that  all 
punishment  is  for  the  good  of  the  sinner,  and  that  men  shall  be 
punished  all  their  sins  deserve,  whether  they  repent  or  not. 
That  every  man  suffers  the  full  penalty  for  all  the  sins  he  com 
mits,  may  be  considered  a  cardinal  doctrine  with  American  Uni- 


156  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

versalists.  "  Every  man  shall  suffer  to  the  full  extent  of  his 
deserts.  There  is  no  remission  of  punishment,  either  on  account 
of  the  Saviour's  death,  or  the  sinner's  penitence."  U.  III.  $ 
Def.,  p.  249.  Quotations  might  be  given  harmonizing  with  this, 
from  most  of  their  leading  writers.  In  order  to  sustain  this  false 
position,  they  are  driven  to  another,  viz.,  that  the  sinner  may  he 
fully  punished  and  still  forgiven.  Says  Skinner,  "  The  com 
mon  opinion  that  forgiveness  is  a  remission  of  punishment,  is 
altogether  incorrect.  We  can  be  justly  punished  and  still  for 
given."  U.  111.  $  Def.,  pp.  250,  254.  Says  Fernald, 
speaking  of  the  Bible,  "  It  never  teaches  the  forgiveness  or  re 
mission  of  punishment  for  sins  committed.  It  is  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  ;  by  which  is  understood,  the  blotting  out,  or  cleansing 
from,  after  due  justice  is  administered."  U.  against  Part., 
p.  259.  Says  Sawyer :  "Christ  came  to  save  men  from  de 
serving  punishment,  rather  than  from  punishment  deserved." 
Letter  to  Remington,  p.  49.  Another  doctrine  which  Mr. 
Whittemore  asserts  to  be  denominational,  is,  that  the  punish 
ment  of  sin  is  executed  as  soon  as  it  is  committed,  or  that  sin 
punishes  itself  immediately.  (Sec.  XLIX.) 

Now  just  compare  these  sentiments  with  the  language  of  Paul. 
"  And  be  ye  kind,  one  to  another,  tender  hearted,  forgiving  one 
another,  even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you." 
Eph.  4  :  32.  Again  :  "  Forbearing  one  another,  and  forgiving 
one  another ;  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel  against  any,  even  as 
Christ  forgave  you,  so  also  do  ye."  Col.  3:  13.  In  these 
scriptures  is  taught  most  clearly  that  we  are  to  forgive  injuries 
in  the  same  sense  that  God  forgives  sinners.  Now  if  all  sin  is 
punished  without  delay,  and  if  by  gospel  forgiveness  none  are 
saved  from  deserved  punishment,  then  we  are  taught  to  show  no 
mercy  to  those  who  have  injured  us  ;  for  observe,  we  are  to  for 
give  those  we  have  a  quarrel  against,  even  AS  God  for  Christ's 
sake  hath  forgiven  us.  Thus,  to  be  in  accordance  with  Univer- 
salist  theology,  the  law  of  quick  retaliation  should  universally 
prevail  in  human  society  !  The  injunction  contained  in  these 


SeC.   70.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  157 

\ 

texts,  when  properly  considered,  entirely  overthrows  the  doc 
trine  of  no  escape  from  punishment.  A  display  of  texts  is  made 
by  Mr.  Skinner  to  show  "that  the  scriptures  never  speak  of 
forgiving  punishment,"  and  that  "forgiveness  of  sin  only  is 
taught."  U.  111.  and  JDef.,  p.  250.  This  is  not  only  weak, 
but  wicked,  for  the  design  is  deceptive.  Nothing  is  said  of  for 
giving  punishment,  for  the  good  reason  that  the  sinner  does  not 
commit  punishment,  but  sin ;  and  when  this  sinful  act  is  forgiven, 
the  sinner  is  saved  from  the  punishment  which  would  otherwise 
follow.  "  What  is  pardon  but  a  revocation  of  the  sentence  of 
condemnation,  and  thereby  a  remission  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law  ?  We  can  form  no  other  idea  of  pardon  than  this  ;  and  the 
reason  is  because  sin  —  we  speak  of  the  transgression  of  the 
]aw  —  is  an  action,  not  a  substance,  and  therefore  untangible, 
and  you  cannot  treat  with  it,  either  to  forgive  it,  or  to  punish  it, 
apart  from  the  agent  which  commits  it.  A  sinner  is  pardoned 
just  so  far  as  his  punishment  is  remitted  to  him,  and  no  farther." 
Merritt. 

Great  importance  is  attached  to  forgiveness,  as  every  reader 
of  the  Bible  knows.  But  according  to  the  hypothesis  that  none 
are  saved  from  deserved  punishment  by  it,  we  think  it  would 
puzzle  a  philosopher,  as  well  as  a  divine,  to  show  what  advan 
tage  a  forgiven  sinner  possesses  over  one  that  is  not  forgiven. 

The  forgiven  is  punished  all  his  sins  deserve,  and  the  unfor- 
given  is  punished  no  more.  Such  forgiveness  is  of  equal  value 
with  a  pardon  from  his  holiness  the  Pope.  Having  manufactured 
a  new  theology,  the  leaders  in  the  sect  have  found  it  necessary  to 
form  a  new  language  to  suit  it.  What  linguist  has  ever  informed 
us  that  forgiveness  or  pardon  means  to  save  from  sin  by  pre 
venting  it  in  the  future,  and  that  too  without  conveying  the  idea 
of  deliverance  from  the  punishment  due  sins  that  are  past? 
These  words  are  never  so  understood  when  employed  in  refer 
ence  to  the  common  affairs  of  life.  A  number  of  persons  unite 
in  petitioning  the  Executive  of  the  State  for  the  pardon  of  a 
certain  criminal  in  the  state  prison.  The  bearer  of  it  appears 


158  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

before  the  governor  and  explains  as  follows  :  May  it  please  your 
Honor  :  your  petitioners  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  asking 
that  the  criminal  should  be  released  from  any  punishment  he  is 
doomed  to  suffer ;  but  on  the  other  hand  we  desire  he  should 
suffer  the  whole  penalty.  We  mean  by  asking  a  pardon  that 
you  should  take  away  his  love  of  crime  and  prevent  his  commit- 
ing  it  in  future.  The  Executive  would  either  count  the  man 
insane,  or  consider  it  an  unmitigated  insult.  Some  years  ago, 
President  Jackson  pardoned  a  leader  of  a  piratical  crew  who 
was  under  sentence  of  death  in  Boston.  The  pardon  was 
granted,  not  because  he  was  innocent  of  the  charge  of  piracy, 
for  none  doubted  his  guilt,  but  in  consideration  of  the  pleadings 
of  his  wife,  and  of  a  heroic  and  humane  deed  in  which  at  one 
time  he  had  risked  his  own  life  to  save  others.  On  the  reception 
of  the  communication  the  officer  in  charge,  with  the  Universalist 
idea,  would  have  reasoned  thus  :  Pardon  saves  from  the  punish 
ment  of  no  sins  already  committed  ;  I  will  therefore  proceed  to 
hang  the  man  at  the  time  appointed  !  All  must  see  that  such 
an  act  would  be  carrying  out  the  Universalist  idea  of  pardon, 
for  in  such  a  case  he  would  suffer  the  whole  penalty  and  be  most 
effectually  prevented  from  committing  piracy  in  the  future.  But 
what  would  the  world  think  of  that  officer's  idea  of  pardon  ? 
The  truth  is,  this  notion  that  forgiveness  implies  no  remission  of 
punishment  for  sins  committed,  is  at  war  with  common  sense, 
the  common  and  established  use  of  language,  and  the  word  of 
God.  That  penitents  have  been  saved  from  deserved  punish 
ment,  and  that  such  salvation  is  established  in  the  economy  of 
God's  grace,  we  purpose  now  to  show  most  clearly  from  the 
scriptures.  So  numerous  are  the  texts  where  this  doctrine  is 
taught,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  that  we  shall  present  but  a 
few  compared  with  the  number  which  might  be  adduced,  Take 
the  case  of  the  woman  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee. 
The  Saviour  said  of  her,  (Luke  7  : 47,)  "  Her  sins,  which  are 
many,  are  forgiven."  That  this  had  respect  to  sins  already 
committed,  the  language  most  explicitly  declares.  Remark  : 


Sec.  70.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  159 

"  Her  sins,  which  are  many,"  &c.  Now  sins  could  not  be  her 
sins  till  she  had  committed  them,  hence  she  was,  by  her  forgive 
ness,  saved  from  the  punishment  she  deserved.  This  is  clear 
also  from  the  illustration  of  the  Saviour,  as  follows  :  "  There 
was  a  certain  creditor,  which  had  two  debtors  :  the  one  owed  him 
five  hundred  pence  and  the  other  fifty.  And  when  they  had 
nothing  to  pay,  he  frankly  forgave  them  both."  Ver.  41,  42. 
Christ  used  this  illustration  to  show  Simon  that  the  reason  why 
this  woman  loved  so  ardently  was  that  she  had  been  forgiven 
much  ;  hence,  he  proposed  the  question  respecting  the  forgiven 
debtors,  "  which  of  them  will  love  most?  "  Ver.  42.  Simon 
answered  :  "  He  to  whom  he  forgave  most."  Ver.  43.  The 
Saviour  replied  :  "  Thou  hast  judged  rightly."  Ver.  43.  But 
according  to  the  newfangled  notions  of  Universalists,  the  forgive 
ness  of  the  woman  relieved  her  from  no  punishment  for  past 
sins,  and  the  Saviour  should  have  illustrated  the  case  as  follows  : 
"  There  was  a  certain  creditor,  which  had  two  debtors  :  the  one 
owed  him  five  hundred  pence  and  the  other  fifty,  and  he  exacted 
the  whole  sum  of  them  without  remitting  a  single  farthing,  and 
then  frankly  forgave  them  both  !  "  Such  an  act  must  have 
produced  great  love  for  the  creditor,  and  especially  on  the  part 
of  the  one  that  was  forced  to  pay  most !  !  So  plain  is  this  case, 
that  every  honest  mind  must  admit  that  the  Universalist  doctrine 
of  forgiveness  is  contradicted  by  the  Son  of  God  himself.  If 
we  are  not  taught  in  this  case,  salvation  from  punishment  for 
past  sins,  by  forgiveness,  then,  we  can  learn  nothing  from  the 
Bible.  That  forgiveness  saves  from  punishment  for  past  sins  is 
evident  from  these  passages  which  s  peak  of  remission  of  sins. 
Take  the  declaration  of  Paul,  where,  speaking  of  Christ,  he 
says  :  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through 
faith  in  his  blood ;  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission 
of  sins  that  are  past"  Rom.  3  :  25. 

Here  the  apostle  asserts  that 'Christ's  righteousness  was  de 
clared  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  PAST.  To  remit  sin 
that  is  past  cannot  mean  to  prevent  the  act,  for  to  talk  of  saving 


160  UNIVERSALISM    NOT  OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

men  from  committing  sin  already  committed,  is  to  utter  nonsense. 
Sin,  after  it  is  committed,  admits  of  no  salvation  except  from  its 
guilt  and  punishment.     What  can  be  remitted  of  a  sin  past,  but 
the   punishment  ?     Just  nothing.     Universalism    opposes   this 
view,  and  in  this  it  conflicts  again,  not  only  with  the  word  of 
God  and  Christian  experience,  but  also  with  the  most  eminent 
linguists  of  the  age.     Webster,  in  denning  "remission,"  refers 
to  the  scriptures,  and  says  its  meaning  is,   "Forgiveness;  par 
don  ;  that  is,  the  giving  up  of  a  punishment  due  to  a  crime  ;  as, 
the  remission  of  sins.     Matt.  26  ;  Heb.  9."     God's  declaration 
to  sinners  is,  "  When  I  say  unto  the  wicked,  thou  shalt  surely 
die  ;  if  he  turn  from  his  sin,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and 
right ;  if  the  wicked  restore  the  pledge,  give  again  that  he  had 
robbed,  walk  in  the  statutes  of  life  without  committing  iniquity  ; 
he  shall  surely  live,  he  shall  not  die.  None  of  his  sins  that  he  hath 
committed  shall  be  mentioned  unto  him."      Ez.  33  :  14-16. 
This  has  respect  to  past  sins.     Observe  :  ';  If  the  wicked  restore 
the  pledge,  give  again  that  he  had  robbed — none  of  his  sins 
that  he  hath  committed"  &c.     A  righteous  God  never  threatens 
a  punishment  which  is  not  deserved,  nor  promises  that  which  is 
false  or  inconsistent.     It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  salvation 
from  deserved  punishment  for  repentant  sinners  is  here  promised 
by  the  God  of  truth,  and  thus  is  the  Universalist  assumption 
again  contradicted.      (Sec.  CIII.)     Look  at  the  parable  of  the 
barren  fig-tree  :  "  A  certain  man,"  &c.     Luke  13  :  6-9.     We 
suppose  it  will  be  readily  admitted,  that  by  the  owner  of  this 
vineyard  God  is  meant ;  and  by  the  fig-tree  we  are  to  understand 
accountable  beings.     Those  represented  by  the  fig-tree  deserve 
punishment.     "  Cut  it  down,  why  cumbereth  it  the  ground?  " 
The  intercession  of  the  dresser  of  the  vineyard,  saying  :   "  If  it 
bear  fruit,  well ;  if  not,  then  after  that  thou  shalt  cut  it  down," 
clearly  indicates  that,  on  condition  of  its  bearing  fruit  in  future  it 
should  be  saved  from  deserved  punishment  for  its  previous  bar 
renness.     As  this  was  spoken  to  illustrate  the  dealings  of  God 
with  men,  salvation  from  deserved  punishment  is  clearly  taught. 


Sec.  70.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  161 

The  man  of  Christian  experience  needs  no  argument  to  convince 
him  that  forgiveness  includes  the  idea  of  salvation  from  deserved 
punishment ;  neither  does  the  man  who  is  truly  penitent  for  his 
sins  ever  once  imagine  he  has  been  fully  punished  for  them  up 
to  the  present  time,  but  enters  deeply  into  sympathy  with  the 
Psalmist  and  prays,  "  For  thy  name's  sake,  0  Lord,  pardon 
mine  iniquity,  for  it  is  great."  Ps.  25^11.  This  supplication 
stands  directly  opposed  to  the  notion  of  no  salvation  from  pun 
ishment.  Remark  :  Pardon  mine  iniquity  or  sin.  No  sin  is 
ours  till  it  is  committed.  For  it  is  great;  not  will  l)e  great 
after  it  is  committed.  It  was  pardon  for  past  sin  that  the 
Psalmist  sought,  as  all  must  see. 

Now  we  can  form  no  conception  of  a  blessing,  called  pardon 
for  past  sin,  save  that  of  salvation  from  its  consequences.  Said 
Ezra,  that  learned  and  pious  scribe  :  * '  After  all  that  has  come 
upon  us  for  our  evil  deeds,  and  for  our  great  trespass,  seeing 
that  thou,  our  God,  hast  punished  us  LESS  than  our  iniquities 
deserve,  and  hast  given  us  such  deliverance  as  this."  Ezra 
9:13.  What  language  could  be  framed  to  more  positively  con 
tradict  Universalism  than  this  ?  That  says  none  suffer  less  than 
their  iniquities  deserve,  which  is  directly  opposed  to  the  Bible, 
and  of  course  must  be  false.  The  same  fact  is  asserted  by  the 
Psalmist :  ' {  He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our  sins  ;  nor  re 
warded  us  according  to  our  iniquities."  Ps.  103:10.  The 
reader  will  please  turn  to  Ex.  32  : 8-14 :  "  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  Moses,"  &c. 

The  following  is  from  the  pen  of  another  upon  this  passage, 
and  also  upon  the  threatening  of  God  against  the  Ninevites  : 

"  Here  God  is  represented  as  threatening  his  people  with  an 
overthrow,  and  as  turning  away  from  the  evil  which  he  thought 
to  do,  at  the  intercession  of  Moses.  The  evil  with  which  God 
threatened  them,  was  a  punishment  for  the  sin  of  idolatry,  in 
making  and  worshiping  a  golden  calf.  Now,  this  threatened 
punishment  was  just,  or  it  was  not ;  if  it  was  just,  then  God 
saved  the  rebellious  Isralites  from  a  just  punishment ;  for  he 
9* 


162  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

turned  away  from  the  evil  which  he  thought  to  do  unto  them, 
and  did  it  not ;  and  if  the  threatened  punishment  was  not  just, 
then  God  once  thought  to  do  an  unjust  evil  to  his  people ;  there 
fore,  it  must  be  admitted  that  God  did  save  the  people  from 
a  just  punishment,  in  this  case,  since  it  cannot  be  admitted  that 
he  threatened  and  thought  to  do  that  which  was  unjust.  The 
divine  clemency  exercised  towards  condemned  and  devoted 
Nineveh,  is  another  instance  of  salvation  from  just  punishment. 
God  threatened  Nineveh  with  an  overthrow  in  forty  days,  and 
yet,  on  their  repentance,  it  is  said,  (Jonah  3  :  10,)  '  And  God 
saw  their  work ;  that  they  turned  from  their  evil  ways ;  and 
God  repented  of  the  evil  that  he  had  said  he  would  do  unto 
them  ;  and  he  did  it  not.' 

"  The  remarks  which  have  been  just  made,  on  the  case  of  the 
idolatrous  Israelites,  will  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  preserva 
tion  of  Nineveh.  God  either  saved  the  people  of  Nineveh  from 
SL  just  punishment,  or  else  he  threatened  them  with  an  unjust 
punishment.  It  will  not  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  this,  to  say  that 
the  punishment,  with  which  they  were  threatened,  would  have 
been  just  had  they  not  repented ;  but  in  view  of  the  change 
which  took  place  in  their  moral  character,  it  wa«  not  just,  and 
therefore  was  not  inflicted ;  for  this  would  be  to  suppose  that 
the  threatened  overthrow  was  intended  as  a  punishment  for  their 
sins  which  they  had  not  committed,  but  which  they  would  have 
committed  in  future  time,  which  is  false. 

"  1.  They  were  threatened  directly  for  what  they  had  already 
done.  The  Lord  said  unto  Jonah,  (chap.  1  :  2,)  '  Arise,  go  to 
Nineveh,  that  great  city,  and  cry  against  it ;  for  their  wicked 
ness  is  come  up  before  me.'  God  here  speaks  of  their  wicked 
ness  in  the  present  time,  is  come  up,  and  not  in  the  future,  will, 
or  will  have  come,  up.  God  did  not  command  Jonah  to  cry 
against  them  because  they  were  about  to  be  very  wicked,  but 
because  their  wickedness  had  already  come  up  before  him. 

"  2.  Jonah  attributes  the  preservation  of  Nineveh  to  the  grace, 
mercy  and  great  kindness  of  God.  (Chap.  4:2.)  'I  knew 


SeC.  70.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  163 

that  thou  art  a  gracious  God,  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of 
great  kindness,  and  repenteth  thee  of  the  evil.'  Now,  on  the 
supposition  that  the  Ninevites  did  not  deserve  the  threatened 
overthrow,  in  view  of  their  reform,  wherein  do  the  grace,  mercy, 
and  great  kindness  of  God  appear  in  their  preservation  ?  This 
view  represents  God  as  being  gracious,  merciful,  and  great  in 
kindness,  merely  because  he  did  not  inflict  an  unjust  punish 
ment,  which  is  too  absurd  to  be  indulged  in  for  a  moment.  It 
is  clear,  then,  that  the  punishment  with  which  Nineveh  was  threat 
ened,  was  just,  in  view  of  what  they  had  already  done  ;  and  if  so, 
it  is  conclusive  that  God  saved  them  from  a  just  punishment." 
Rev.  L.  Lee. 

In  the  light  of  these  scriptures  we  see  the  meaning  of  the 
passage  which  Universalists  drag  into  their  service,  found  Ex. 
34  : 6,  7  :  "  And  the  Lord  passed  by  before  him,  and  pro 
claimed,  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy 
for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  and  transgression,  and  sin, 
and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  The  sense  of 
this  text  in  obviously  this  :  "  God  bears  long  with  sinners  when 
they  deserve  punishment,  and  if  they  repent  he  forgives  them, 
but  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  if  impenitent."  Many  of 
the  threatenings,  as  well  as  the  promises  of  the  Bible,  have  con 
ditions  implied,  though  not  expressed.  Take,  as  an  illustration 
of  this,  God's  message  to  Nineveh  :  "  Forty  days  and  Nineveh 
shall  be  overthrown."  Remark  :  It  is  not  said  it  shall  be  over 
thrown,  except  the  inhabitants  repent ;  but  the  language  is  pos 
itive  in  its  character,  "  shall  be  overthrown."  But  there  was  a 
condition  implied  though  not  expressed,  for  by  their  penitence 
the  evil  was  averted  ;  or,  in  other  words,  God  cleared  the  guilty 
as  has  been  shown.  Just  so  in  the  case  before  us ;  if  penitent, 
God  will  clear  the  guilty,  but  he  will  by  no  means  clear  such  if 
not  penitent.  The  Lord  in  this  passage  declares  himself  to  be 
long-suffering.  Peter  gives  him  the  same  character,  (2  Peter, 
3:9):  and  Paul  speaks  of  his  forbearance  and  long-suffering. 


164  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I 

Rom.  2  :  4.  By  long-suffering  is  meant  patience,  clemency. 
By  forbearance,  omitting  to  punish,  lenity  ;  i.  e.,  sinners  are 
borne  with  when  they  deserved  to  be  punished.  But  Univer- 
salist  views  drive  long-suffering  and  forbearance  completely  out 
of  the  divine  administration.  If  God  punishes  men  to  the  full 
extent  as  soon  as  sin  is  committed,  where,  we  ask,  is  his  for 
bearance  and  long-suffering  ?  A  father  punishes  a  child  in  every 
instance  just  as  soon  as  his  commands  are  violated.  What  would 
be  thought  of  the  man  who  should  extol  him  for  his  long-suffer 
ing  and  forbearance  ?  A  child  of  eight  years  would  know  bet 
ter.  The  falsity  of  the  Universalist  theory  discovers  itself  in 
contradicting  the  Bible  in  this  as  well  as  many  other  things. 
The  text  at  the  head  of  this  section  is  often  used  to  prove  that 
God  is  merciful  to  the  ungodly  in  punishing  them,  therefore 
none  will  be  punished  more  than  shall  be  for  their  good.  "  We 
admit  that  punishment  is  often  connected  with  mercy,  but  not 
that  the  mercy  always  extends  to  the  individual  sufferer. 
' '  God  '  divided  the  Red  Sea  into  parts  —  and  made  Israel  to 
pass  through  the  midst  of  it  —  but  overthrew  Pharaoh  and  his 
host  in  the  Red  Sea ;  for  his  mercy  endureth  forever.'  Ps.  136  : 
13-15.  Mercy  is  here  connected  with  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh 
and  his  host ;  but  no  man  in  his  senses  supposes  the  mercy 
extended  to  the  Egyptians.  It  was  a  mercy  to  the  Israelites  to 
be  delivered  in  this  way  out  of  the  hands  of  their  enemies." 
Isaac.  So  in  Ps.  62  :  12,  God  is  considered  merciful  because  he 
would  protect  his  people  and  destroy  their  enemies. 

One  text  more,  and  we  leave  the  subject  with  the  reader  : 
"  He  that  blasphemeth  against  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  never  for 
giveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation."  Mark  3  :  29. 
By  this  we  see  that  forgiveness  and  damnation  stand  opposed  to 
each  other.  He  who  is  forgiven  is  not  damned,  and  he  who  is 
damned  is  not  forgiven.  These  words  of  Christ  stand  directly 
opposed  to  the  Universalist  doctrine,  that  forgiveness  saves  from 
no  deserved  punishment.  To  show  that  penitent  believing  sinners 
are  saved  from  merited  punishment,  we  might  call  to  our  aid  the 


Sec.  71.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  165 

doctrine  of  atonement,  so  fully  established  in  the  Jewish  econo 
my  and  consummated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  taught  all 
through  the  New  Testament,  but  especially  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  But  a  sufficiency  has  already  been  presented  to  es 
tablish  the  point  with  the  candid.  Universalist  views  of  for 
giveness  are  also  refuted,  Matt.  18  :  23—35. 

LXXI.  "  For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment, 
with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be 
evil"  Eccl.  12:14. 

It  is  inquired,  "Is  it  said,  'God  shall  bring  every  work 
into  judgment '  in  the  future,  immortal  existence  ?  No  such 
statement  is  made.  The  Saviour  said  when  on  earth,  '  Now  is 
the  judgment  of  this  world.'  John  12  :  31 ;  '  for  judgment  I 
came  into  this  world. '  John  9:39;  '  verily  he  is  a  God  that 
judgeth  in  the  earth:  Ps.  58  : 11."  Guide,  p.  73.  (On  the 
scriptures  quoted  see  Sec.  LI.) 

Let  us  apply  Mr.  Whittemore's  rule  to  his  own  doctrine.  "  Is 
it  anywhere  said  in  the  Bible  that  all  men  shall  be  saved  '  in  the 
future,  immortal  existence  ?  No  such  statement  is  made.  The 
Saviour  said  when  on  earth,'  '  This  day  is  salvation  come.' 
Luke  19  :  9.  Simeon  said,  '  Mine  eyes  have  seen  thy  salva 
tion.'  Luke  2  :  30.  Paul  said,  '  Now  is  the  day  of  salva 
tion.'  2  Cor.  6:2." 

Now,  if  the  argument  of  the  Guide  sets  aside  a  future  judg 
ment,  then  is  future  salvation  set  aside  by  the  same  method, 
and  Universalism  is  proved  a  fable.  So  the  man  has  discharged 
a  gun  which  blows  his  own  brains  out !  A  kind  of  gun  in  very 
common  use  among  the  class  of  writers  to  which  he  belongs. 
The  whole  connection  in  which  the  text  is  found  shows  that  a 
judgment  beyond  the  grave  is  intended.  The  inspired  writer 
brings  it  in  as  the  winding  up  of  the  drama  of  human  life.  He 
is  giving  a  description  of  the  scenes  of  old  age  and  death,  and 
in  a  very  impressive  manner,  adds  :  "  Let  us  hear  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  whole  matter :  fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments, 


166  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

for  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man.  For  God  will  bring  every  work 
into  judgment,"  &c.  By  judgment  is  here  meant  an  examina 
tion  of  conduct,  a  bringing  to  light  of  secret  things,  and  decid 
ing  whether  they  be  good  or  evil.  But  where  in  all  the  history 
of  this  world  is  there  anything  which  suits  this  language  ?  Some 
die  in  the  very  act  of  murdering  others.  Such  must  be 
judged  in  the  future  world  if  anywhere.  See  Sec.  XL VI  • 
also  LX. 

LXXII.     "Behold,  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy, 
which  shall  be  to  all  people ."     Luke  2  :  10. 

What  is  meant  by  the  good  tidings  named?     "  The  word 
evangelizomai,  here  rendered,  I  bring  you  good  tidings,  is  trans 
lated,  preach  the  gospel.     Luke  4:18;  20  :  1 ;  Acts  16  :  10. 
The  precise  signification  is  expressed  in  the  common  translation." 
So  says  Page,  the  Universalist  commentator.     The  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  then,  is  what  is  meant  by  glad  tidings.    Well,  what  is 
it  to  preach  the  gospel  according  to  Universalists  ?     It  is  to  pro 
claim  the  salvation  of  all  men.     It  is  assumed,  too,  that  all  our 
race  are  to  be  made  joyful  by  these  tidings.     "  The  blessing  was 
designed  for  all ;  hence  the   annunciation  of  it  would  be  good 
news,   tidings  of   great  joy,    to   all."       Page  in  loco.       The 
tidings   then  are  to  produce  the  universal  joy.     But  when  is 
this  universal  joy  to  take  place   by  the  preaching  of  Universal- 
ism.     Not  in  this  world,  surely,  Universalists  themselves  being 
witnesses ;  for  they  tell  us  that  the   blind  Partialists  are  en 
shrouded  in  gloom  and  sadness  because  they  do  not  believe  in 
their  doctrine ;  and  furthermore,  millions  have  died  who  have 
never  heard  of  universal  salvation.     Now  as  it  is  affirmed  that 
all  will  be  made  joyful  by  the  preaching  of  this  gospel ;  and  as  it 
is  an  admitted  fact  that  all  are  not  made  so  in  this  world,  it  fol 
lows  that  to  produce  this  universal  joy,  this  gospel  must  be 
preached  in  the  future  state.     But  if  this  be  so,  then  all  are  not 
joyful  in  the  future  world ;  for  if  they  are,  then  they  need  no 
gospel  preached  to  make  them  so,  and  thus  the  idea  so  fondly 


Sec.  72.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  167 

cherished,  that  "  there  is  no  condition  for  man  beyond  death, 
but  that  in  which  he  is  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven,"  is 
blown  to  fragments  at  once.  In  view  of  this  conclusion,  growing 
out  of  premises  furnished  by  themselves,  we  see  no  other  way  for 
them  but,  after  having  made  so  much  proficiency  in  the  science 
of  divinity,  to  go  back  to  the  old  obsolete  doctrine  of  their 
fathers,  by  which  they  taught  that  devils  and  damned  spirits 
would  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them  in  hell,  and  thus  be 
recovered.  It  cannot  be  well  doubted  but  the  commission  given 
by  Christ  to  preach  the  gospel  would  harmonize  with  the  an 
nouncement  of  the  angels  respecting  the  same  subject.  If  the 
angels,  by  their  message,  taught  Universalism,  the  divine  Saviour 
knew  it ;  and  if  he  was  a  Universalist,  and  came  into  the  world 
to  establish  that  doctrine,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  see 
great  prominence  given  to  it  in  the  gospel  commission  that  he 
gave  to  his  apostles,  especially  as  they  were  to  go  out  to  preach 
among  believers  in  endless  punishment.  (Sec.  CXXXII.)  We 
should  expect  to  find  in  it  something  like  the  following  :  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  to  all  classes  of  sinners,  saying, 
fear  not  in  your  unbelief  and  wickedness,  but  rejoice  and  be  ex 
ceeding  glad,  for  heavenly  bliss  is  yours,  irrespective  of  your 
conduct  here,  as  soon  as  death  does  its  work,  or  at  the  next 
conscious  existence.  Fearlessly  expose  and  rebuke,  before  every 
creature,  the  great  errors  of  a  future  judgment  and  endless  pun 
ishment,  showing  them  that  hell  is  a  fable,  that  their  conduct 
here  takes  no  hold  on  the  future,  and  that  they  cannot  commit 
sin  enough  to  incur  any  more  punishment  than  shall  be  for  their 
good.  This,  in  substance,  is  a  Universalist  commission.  But 
the  one  our  Saviour  gave  is  very  unlike  this,  and  reads  thus  : 
"  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea 
ture.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  and  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  Mark  16  : 15. 

Suppose  Mr.  Ballou  had  commissioned  a  class  of  men  to  have 
preached  his  gospel,  would  he  have  failed  to  have  inserted  future 
bliss  for  all,  and  hell  for  none.  No  Universalist  of  the  modern 


168  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

school  would  be  guilty  of  sucli  an  omission.  But  the  Saviour 
not  only  omits  this,  but  says  of  those  to  whom  the  gospel  is 
sent,  "  he  that  belie  veth  not  shall  be  damned."  How  deficient 
the  Saviour  was  in  commissioning  men  ;  or  rather,  how  false  is 
Universalism  ! 

It  is  assumed  that  the  phrase  "  all  people"  must  mean  the 
whole  of  the  posterity  of  Adam.  That  this  is  incorrect,  is  evi 
dent  from  the  fact  before  stated,  viz.:  that  millions  have  died 
who  have  never  heard  the  gospel  preached  ;  neither  will  they, 
unless  it  is  preached  to  them  in  the  future  world ;  and  this  will 
not  be  contended  for  by  Universalists  themselves,  as  it  is  de 
structive  to  other  fond  notions  of  theirs.  God  threatened  the 
Jews,  that  if  they  worshiped  other  Gods  he  would  make  them 
"a  proverb  and  by-word  among  all  people"  1  Kings  9  :  7. 
Were  the  Jews  to  be  a  proverb  and  by-word  among  the  whole 
human  race  ?  Certainly  not ;  but  only  among  them  who  should 
know  them  after  they  had  worshiped  other  gods.  So  the  good 
tidings  are  designed  for  all  people  to  whom  they  are  sent ;  but 
the  history  of  Christianity  shows  that  they  have  failed  to  make 
all  who  have  heard  them  joyful.  That  Christ  died  for  all,  and 
that  God,  as  a  moral  governor,  wills  the  salvation  of  all  moral 
agents,  is  equally  true  ;  and  it  is  true,  too,  that  all  do  not  yield 
obedience  to  his  will.  The  Saviour  preached  his  own  gospel,  but 
all  who  heard  it  did  not  become  joyful,  but  many  were  exceed 
ingly  enraged,  and  despised  him  and  his  message  ;  and  his  com 
plaint  was,  "Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have 
life." 

He  sent  out  apostles,  and  how  did  they  succeed  ?  Paul, 
although  he  was  enabled  to  preach  the  gospel  extensively,  yet 
his  labors  proved  a  savor  of  death  unto  death  to  some,  (2  Cor. 
2  : 16)  ;  and  he  threatened  those  who  were  disobedient  to  the 
gospel  with  everlasting  destruction.  2  Thess.  1  :  8,  9.  Now 
if  the  good  tidings  preached  by  the  Son  of  God  himself,  and  by 
his  inspired  apostles,  failed  to  produce  joy  in  great  numbers  of 
those  who  heard  them ;  what  folly  to  argue  universal  joy  or 


SeC.  72,]     UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.          169 

salvation  as  a  result  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  It  should 
be  observed  that  the  text  under  consideration  does  not  say  that 
the  good  tidings  shall  make  all  people  joyful,  but  they  were  to 
be  "to  all  people,"  that  is,  they  were  to  be  proclaimed,  not 
merely  to  the  Jews,  but  to  all  people,  or  as  the  Saviour  com 
manded,  "  to  every  creature  ;  "  hence,  Simeon  after  clasping  the 
Saviour  in  his  arms,  said  :  "  Mine  eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation, 
which  thou  hast  prepared  before  the  face  of  all  people  ;  a  light 
to  lighten  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel."  Luke 
2  :  30-32.  But  how  can  these  be  good  tidings  to  all  people  if 
all  are  not  saved  ?  We  answer,  that  those  tidings  deserve  the 
denomination  of  good  which  propose  any  advantages  to  us, 
whether  we  avail  ourselves  of  them  or  not.  The  quality  of  the 
tidings  does  not  depend  upon  the  treatment  they  receive.  To 
deceive  the  unthinking,  a  play  of  words  has  been  made  upon 
the  fact  that  ministers  preach  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish 
ment,  and  it  is  very  gravely  inquired,  "  If  such  doctrine  can  be 
considered  good  tidings  ?  "  Now  the  design  of  the  gospel  is  not 
to  procure  or  threaten  men  with  this  punishment,  but  to  offer 
them  salvation  from  that  to  which  they  were  already  exposed. 
A  man  is  exposed  to  a  midnight  assassin ;  a  friend  warns  him  of 
it,  and  points  him  out  a  way  of  escape.  Is  not  such  a  warning 
good  tidings  to  the  man,  although  it  apprizes  him  of  great  dan 
ger  ?  Where  there  is  no  danger,  there  can  be  no  deliverance. 
The  gospel  is  indeed  glad  tidings  to  men,  because  they  are 
greatly  exposed,  and  in  proportion  as  they  discover  their  danger 
will  they  prize  their  deliverance.  If  a  man  is  saved  from  the 
harmless  bite  of  an  insignificant  insect,  he  will  value  it  but 
little  ;  but  if  he  is  saved  from  intense  suffering,  or  an  untimely 
death,  it  will  forcibly  impress  his  feelings,  the  gospel  cannot 
be  preached  without  pointing  out  the  evils  and  danger  from 
which  it  proposes  to  deliver  those  who  receive  it ;  and  as  the 
faithful  minister  finds  a  future  judgment  and  endless  punishment 
clearly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  he  urges  the  danger  of  these  as  a 
motive  why  men  should  embrace  the  gospel.  Universalists  scout 


170  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  idea  of  being  exposed  by  sin  to  any  suffering  beyond  this 
life  ;  hence,  they  can  never  value  their  gospel  very  highly,  for 
they  were  never  in  any  very  great  danger,  and  of  course  have 
never  experienced  any  great  deliverance.  This  accounts  for  the 
heartlessness  found  among  its  votaries  when  left  to  them 
selves.  Such  is  the  want  of  vitality  in  the  system,  that  were 
New  England  wholly  given  up  to  this  dogma  it  would  soon  die 
out,  so  far  as  organization  and  support  of  its  ministry  is  con 
cerned.  The  great  vital  principle  of  action  in  the  order  is,  op 
position  to  others.  Remove  this,  and  there  is  not  enough  in  it 
to  keep  it  alive  a  single  year. 

But  the  Christian  sees  in  the  gospel  a  great  and  glorious  plan 
to  rescue  man  from  eternal  death  ;  and  in  Christ  he  sees  a  great 
Saviour  dying  for  his  sins  and  becoming  "  the  author  of  eternal 
salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him,"  (Heb.  5:9);  and  all 
this  the  effect  of  great  love.  He  has  felt,  too,  his  own  personal 
exposure  and  wretchedness,  and  has  been  led  to  cry  to  God  for 
salvation  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  has  found  the  gospel  to  be 
good  tidings,  for  his  is  a  great  salvation.  He  now  feels  as  no 
man  with  Universalist  views  can  feel,  for  he  is  forgiven  much 
and  he  loves  much.  Luke  7  :  47.  Impressed  with  such  views 
and  feelings,  he  needs  not  the  spur  of  opposition  to  keep  him 
awake  to  duty,  for  the  love  of  God  is  not  merely  talked  of,  but 
is  shed  abroad  in  his  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  this  prompts 
him  to  deeds  of  noble  daring  and  sacrifice  for  Christ  and  lost 
men,  that  they  may  receive  the  gospel  too. 

LXXIII.  "  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  mani 
fested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil."  1  John 
3:8. 

But  what  has  the  devil  done  ?  Has  his  work  exposed  men  to 
a  future  hell  ?  Universalists  will  not  admit  this  for  a  moment. 
Well,  what  has  Christ  done  by  being  manifested  ?  Did  he  come 
to  save  from  misery  in  the  future  world  ?  It  is  denied  by  high 
authority  among  Universalists  that  Christ  came  into  this  world 
to  save  men  in  the  next.  (Sec.  CV.) 


Sec.  74.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  171 

1.  According  to  this  dogma,  universal  salvation  is  to  take 
place   in   the   next  world  by  the  resurrection.     (Sec.  I.  and 

XCV.) 

2.  The  works  of  either  devils  or  men   cannot  endanger  this 
salvation,  as  it  was  all  made  sure  when  God  created  man.     (Sec. 
CV.) 

3.  Christ  never  came  into  this  world  to  save  men  in  the 
next. 

With  these  positions,  taken  generally  by  the  order,  what  force 
or  consistency  is  there  in  bringing  this  text,  as  Mr.  Whittemore, 
{Guide,  p.  52,)  and  others  of  the  order,  are  wont  to  do,  to 
prove  the  salvation  of  all  in  eternity  ?  Shall  we  so  reflect  upon 
the  intelligence  of  these  men  as  to  count  them  ignorant  of  these 
contradictions  in  their  arguments  ?  Christ's  coming  that  he 
might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  is  expressive  of  the  design 
of  his  advent,  but  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  he 
will  save  all  men  unconditionally.  John  in  this  same  epistle, 
(1  John  1:9,)  has  clearly  stated  the  conditionality  of  this  de 
struction  of  sin.  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just 
to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness." 
In  such  penitent,  believing  hearts  Christ  destroys  the  works 
of  the  devil  and  qualifies  them  for  heaven.  That  the  finally 
impenitent  will  not  be  saved,  because  Christ  was  manifested  that 
he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,  is  also  seen  by  the  fact 
that  to  punish  the  sinner  for  his  wickedness  is  not  the  work  of 
the  devil.  After  the  sinner  has  slighted  mercy  and  failed  to 
comply  with  the  conditions,  and  dying  in  that  state,  God's  pen 
alty  must  be  inflicted,  and  there  is  no  escape. 

LXXIV.  "  That  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of 
times  he  might  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both 
which  are  in  heaven  and  which  are  on  earth."  Eph.  1  : 10. 

In  an  unrestricted  sense,  the  text  includes  not  merely  human 
beings,  but  every  created  object,  such  as  beasts,  birds,  fishes, 
reptiles,  planets,  &c.  As  none  will  contend  that  these  things 


172  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

arc  included,  we  see  that  the  text  is  to  be  understood  in  a  re 
stricted  sense.  John  the  Baptist  came  to  "  restore  all  things" 
Matt.  17  :  11.  It  was  not  his  office  to  restore  the  universe  to 
its  original  order,  or  to  restore  the  whole  human  race  to  bliss  ; 
but  to  restore  all  things  to  be  restored  by  his  ministry.  (Sec. 
XXX.)  So  God  in  the  fulness  of  times  will  gather  all  things  in 
Christ  to  be  gathered.  The  idea  is,  that  in  the  "fullness  of 
times,"  when  Christ  shall  have  finished  his  work  as  mediator, 
when  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father,  (1  Cor. 
15  :  24,)  from  whom  he  received  it,  (Matt.  28  : 18,)  all  the 
saints  in  heaven,  and  all  the  faithful  then  living  upon  earth, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles  by  birth,  shall  be  made  to  constitute 
one  triumphant  church,  as  they  are  in  fact  one  family  now. 
Eph.  3  : 15. 

But  bear  in  mind  that  it  never  was  the  design  of  God  in  the 
gift  of  his  Son,  that  moral  agents  who  fail  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  of  the  gospel,  should  be  gathered  into  the  church  tri 
umphant.  We  learn  by  language  equally  strong,  (Col.  1 :  20,) 
that  God  designed  to  "  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,"  by 
Christ.  But  we  also  learn  from  the  context  that  the  reconcilia 
tion  takes  place  in  this  world,  and  that  it  is  conditional,  for  the 
reconciled  are  exhorted  to  "  continue  in  the  faith,"  and  not  to 
be  moved  away  from  the  hope  of  the  gospel ; "  and  the  apostle, 
speaking  upon  the  same  subject,  (2  Cor.  5  : 19,  20,)  shows  not 
only  that  the  work  takes  place  in  this  world,  but  conjoins  this  rec 
onciliation  with  the  moral  agency  of  men ;  for  while  the  ambassa 
dors  for  Christ  beseech,  sinners  are  to  become  reconciled,  which 
would  be  a  work  wholly  uncalled  for  if  all  are  to  be  reconciled 
unconditionally  in  a  future  state.  (Sec.  LXXY.)  Further 
more,  the  Saviour  has  declared  most  explicitly  that  at  the  time 
specified  by  the  apostle,  instead  of  a  gathering  of  the  whole 
human  race  to  constitute  them  happy  forever,  some  shall  be  sent 
"away  into  everlasting  punishment."  Matt.  25:46.  Paul 
teaches  the  same.  2  Thess.  1  :  9. 


SeC.   75.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  173 

LXXV.  "And  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of 
the  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,"  by  him 
I  say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven" 
Col.  1  :  20. 

This  text  simply  informs  us  of  God's  design  in  giving  his  Son 
to  die  for  the  world,  which  was  that  he  might  reconcile  all  things 
unto  himself  by  Christ.  That  the  design  contemplates  in  its 
provisions  the  reconciliation  of  all  men  to  God,  is  admitted.  But 
it  does  not  follow  from  thence  that  all  are,  or  ever  will  be,  re 
conciled,  for  there  are  certain  terms  of  reconciliation  presented 
which  men  as  moral  agents  are  to  comply  with.  That  men  can 
resist  the  means  by  which  God  designs  to  bring  about  this  recon 
ciliation  is  clear  from  what  the  apostle  says  in  another  place  upon 
the  same  subject.  Hear  him  :  "  To  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  and  not  imputing  their  tres 
passes  unto  them,  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  re 
conciliation.  Now,  then,  we  are  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as 
though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us ;  we  pray  you  in  Christ's 
stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God."  2  Cor.  5  : 19,  20.  Observe  : 
Universalists  bring  the  text  at  the  head  of  this  to  prove,  not 
that  it  is  the  purpose  of  God  to  make  all  holy  and  happy  in  this 
world,  but  in  the  future,  for  the  resurrection  is  to  usher  all  into 
bliss ;  and  they  scout  the  idea  that  men  in  this  world  can  do 
anything  towards  procuring  or  preventing  their  final  salvation. 
(Sec.  XCV.) 

But  it  is  the  purpose  of  God  that  men  shall  be  reconciled 
in  this  world,  and  for  this  intent  ambassadors  are  sent.  That 
this  is  correct  we  see  by  the  scriptures  following  the  passage, 
where  we  learn  that  some  were  then  reconciled,  (v.  21,)  and 
that  even  after  the  reconciliation  has  taken  place,  final  salvation 
is  suspended  upon  the  condition  of  perseverance,  (v.  22,  23)  ; 
for  immediately  after  the  apostle  had  expressed  the  pleasure  of 
God  concerning  the  reconciliation  of  all  things,  he  adds  :  "  And 
you  hath  he  reconciled  in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death, 
to  present  you  holy,  and  unblemished,  and  junreprovable  in  his 


174  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

sight ;  IF  YE  CONTINUE  in  the  faith,  grounded  and  settled, 
and  be  not  MOVED  AWAY  from  the  hope  of  the  gospel." 
With  what  propriety  a  passage  can  be  brought  which  contem 
plates  a  reconciliation  to  take  place  in  this  world,  in  which  man's 
agency  is  employed,  both  as  ambassadors  and  recipients  of  the 
blessing,  to  prove  that  all  will  be  saved  in  the  future  state,  in 
dependent  of  human  agency,  by  the  resurrection,  the  reader 
must  determine.  The  truth  is,  it  no  more  teaches  the  salvation 
of  all  men  in  the  eternal  state,  than  it  does  the  return  of  the 
Jews  to  Palestine. 

LXXVI.  "  Behold  the  righteous  shall  be  recompensed  in 
the  earth,  much  more  the  wicked  and  the  sinner."  Prov. 
11  :31. 

This  text  is  adduced   to  prove  that  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked  experience  a  full  retribution  in  this  world.     But  does 
the  passage  assert  this  ?     It  neither  asserts  or  implies  this  ;  for 
to  understand  it  in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  language,  it  affirms 
that  the  wicked  and  the  sinner  are  much  more  than  recompensed. 
Again  :  The  Universalist  construction  makes  the  first  member  of 
the  text  deny  that  the  righteous  are  recompensed  in  heaven, 
which  contradicts  the  Saviour.     Matt.   5  :  11,  12.     Our  oppo 
nents  profess  to  believe  in  just  rewards  and  punishments  in  this 
world  according  to  works  ;  that  the  wicked  and  the  righteous  suf 
fer  and  enjoy  all  they  deserve  in  this  world  as  a  result  of  their 
conduct.     But  the  Bible  says  :  "  All  things  come  alike  to  all : 
there  is  one  event  to  the  righteous  and  to  the  wicked  ;  to  the 
good,  and  to  the  clean,  and  to  the  unclean ;  to  him  that  sacri- 
ficeth,  and  to  him  that  sacrificeth  not ;  as  is  the   good  so  is  the 
sinner."     Eccl.  9:2. 

This  is  asserted  of  men  in  this  world,  as  the  context  shows. 
Taking  this  text  alone,  we  see  that  a  retribution  in  this  world  is 
positively  denied  ;  and  if  we  allow  the  Universalist  construction 
of  Prov.  11  :  31,  we  have  scripture  arrayed  point  blank  against 
scripture.  We  have  not  introduced  this  text  because  we  believe 


Sec.  77.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  175 

that  the  Spirit  designed  to  teach  that  there  is  absolutely  no  differ 
ence  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  this  world,  but 
just  to  show  what  might  be  done  were  we  to  use  the  same  license 
Universalists  do  in  applying  scripture.  They  bring  Prov. 
11 :  31  to  disprove  future  retribution,  and  with  equal  propriety 
we  bring  Eccl.  9 : 2,  containing  language  more  explicit, 
to  disprove  present  retribution,  and  thus  God's  righteous 
administration  is  banished  from  both  worlds  !  Now  what  does 
this  result  teach  us  ?  It  shows  us  that  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  we 
should  compare  scripture  with  scripture.  If  we  take  these  pas 
sages  to  the  New  Testament  and  compare  them  where  the  future 
condition  of  man  is  more  clearly  brought  to  light,  we  shall  find 
that  after  death  is  the  judgment,  (Heb.  6:2;  9  :  27,)  and  that 
endless  punishment  awaits  the  finally  impenitent.  Matt. 

12  :  32  ;  25  :  46.    That  God  smiles  upon  the  good  here,  and  im 
parts  an  inward  comfort  that  the  wicked  are  strangers  to,  and 
that  he  frowns  upon  the  ungodly,  and  thus  gives  each  a  foretaste 
of  what  awaits  them  in  the  future,  is  true ;  but  then  the  good 
often  suffer  here  by  the  conduct  of  the  wicked,  while   some  of 
the  wicked  enjoy  worldly  comforts  of  which   some  of  the  pious 
are  deprived.     Even  their  own  pious  acts  have  often  been  the 
occasion  of  intense  sufferings  in  this  world.     Ps.  34  : 19  ;  John 
16  :  33  ;  Acts  16  :  22  ;  1  Cor.  15  : 19  compare  with  Job  21  :  7, 
9  ;  Ps.  73  :  3-12.     Is  this  the  way  that  each  class  is  fully  "  re 
compensed  ?  "     (See  Sec.  XL VI.) 

LXXVII.     "Another  parable  put  he  forth,"  &c.     Matt. 

13  : 24-30. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  thoughts  of  our  own  respecting 
the  commencement  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  by  permis 
sion  of  Rev.  P.  R.  Russell,  we  present  the  reader  with  his  able 
refutation  of  the  Universalist  interpretation  of  this  parable,  as 
found  in  his  "Letters  to  a  Universalist,"  p.  115-125. 

He  says  :  "  This  parable  I  regard  as  clearly  teaching  the  pro 
bationary  nature  of  time,  and  the  reality  of  a  judgment  to  come. 


176  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

But  this  natural  and  obvious  view  of  the  passage,  you  object  to, 
and  refer  me  to  standard  authors  among  Universalists,  for  the 
true  scriptural  sense  of  this  portion  of  our  Lord's  preaching. 
I  will  now  examine  the  commonly  received  exposition  of  Univer 
salists.  Messrs.  T.  Whittemore  and  H.  Ballou  shall  be  our 
guides.  They  differ  a  little  between  themselves,  but  in  the  main 
agree.  Let  me  then  ask, 

"  1.  What  is  meant  by  the  field  ?  Mr.  Whittemore  answers  : 
'  Here  the  word  world  is  a  translation  of  the  Greek  word 
kosmos,  which  usually  signifies  the  material  universe.  The 
world,  therefore,  is  to  be  understood  in  its  usual  sense  in  the 
instance  before  us.?  Whittemore  on  Par.,  p.  96.  Now,  re 
member  the  field  in  which  the  wheat  and  tares  were  sown,  is 
*  the  material  universe.'  A  large  field  truly. 

"2.  What  is  denoted  by  the  tares  ?  Mr.  Ballou  shall  answer  : 
He  tells  us  that  the  wheat  represents  sound  doctrine,  that  is, 
Universalism,  and  the  tares  false  doctrine,  that  is,  the  doctrine 
of  future  and  endless  punishment.  Hear  him  :  *  Nor  are  tares 
of  a  very  different  character  from  false  doctrines,  which  make 
many  appearances  like  the  truth,  as  tares  do  like  wheat, 
when  in  the  blade.'  Again :  '  That  it  was  the  will  of  the 
Saviour  that  false  doctrines  should  be  imbibed  [Monstrous  !] 
until  their  fruits  should  come  to  maturity,  is  shown,  in  that  he 
saith,  "  Let  them  both  grow  together  till  harvest."  '  Bailouts 
Notes  on  Par.,  pp.  72,  68.  A  popular  preacher  of  your  de 
nomination,  a  few  months  since,  in  preaching  from  this  parable 
addressed  his  audience  thus  :  '  My  hearers,  do  you  not  sometimes 
feel  a  desire  in  your  hearts,  that  all  men  may  be  holy  and 
happy  in  the  world  to  come  ?  Yes.  Well,  this  is  the  wheat. 
On  the  contrary,  do  you  not  at  times  feel  a  shudder  at  the 
thought  that  you  may  be  seperated  from  your  friends  in  eternity, 
and  that  any  of  them  should  sink  in  endless  torments  ?  Yes. 
Well,  this  is  the  tares'  That  is,  according  to  Mr.  Ballou  and  Uni- 
versalist  authors  in  general,  pure,  lonajide  Universalism  is  the 
wheat ;  and  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  the  tares. 
Remember  this. 


Sec.   77.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  177 

"3.  The  harvest,  or  the  end  of  the  world,  what  does  that 
denote  ?  Mr.  W.  shall  answer  :  '  It  never  should  be  forgotten 
that  the  end  of  the  world,  at  which  the  harvest  was  to  take  place, 
was  not  the  end  of  kosmos,  the  world  said  to  be  the  field  ;  but 
the  end  of  azon,  the  age,  and  unquestionably  referred  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  Jewish  state,'  i.  e.,  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Notes  on  Par.,  p.  101. 

"4.  Our  Saviour  in  his  exposition  of  this  parable,  says: 
'  At  the  end  of  the  world,'  at  the  time  of  the  harvest,  '  the  Son 
of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of^ 
his  kingdom  all  them  that  offend,  and  them  that  do  iniquity.' 
Who  are  these  angels  that  the  Son  of  man  employs  as  reapers  ? 
Mr.  W.  will  answer  :  '  It  is  certainly  meant  that  the  Roman 
armies  were  the  messengers  (angels)  which  God  sent  to  destroy 
his  rebellious  people,  the  Jews.'  p.  103.  Remember  then, 
the  angels  of  Christ,  were  the  Roman  armies.  They  were  the 
reapers  of  the  field,  '  the  material  universe.' 

"5.  Our  Saviour  says,  in  his  explanation,  that  'then'  — 
(that  is,  at  the  end  of  the  world),  '  the  righteous  shall  shine 
forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father.'  What  does  this 
denote,  according  to  the  new  light  shed  upon  the  scriptures  by 
modern  Unive realism  ?  Mr.  Whittemore  will  answer. 

"  '  Their  persecutors,  the  Jews,  being  destroyed  (at  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem),  and  persecutions  on  every  hand  being 
abated  and  softened,  they  would  experience  comparative  earthly 
felicity,  and  have  an  enlarged  enjoyment  of  gospel  peace  and 
life.  Separated  from  the  hypocrites,  the  church  would  be 
pure  ! ! '  p.  104. 

"  We  have  now  before  us  the  Universalist  exposition  of  the 
parable  of  the  tares  and  wheat.  It  is  furnished  by  two  of  your 
most  popular  divines,  fathers  and  oracles  of  the  order.  It  is  un 
questionably  the  best  exposition  of  which  the  system  is  capable. 
Is  it  sound  ?  Will  it  stand  the  test  of  examination  ?  Look  it 
over.  Tho  field  is  the  material  universe  —  the  wheat  is  sound 
doctrine,  that  is  pure  unadulterated  Universalism.  The  tares 
10 


178  UNIYERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

represent  false  doctrine  ;  particularly  the  doctrine  of  future  pun 
ishment  ;  the  harvest  or  end  of  the  world,  was  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  ;  the  angels  were  the  Roman  armies  ;  the  exaltation 
of  the  righteous,  was  the  earthly  felicity  which  Christians  en 
joyed  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  To  all  this  I  object. 

"  1.  It  contradicts  the  exposition  which  the  Saviour  himself 
has  given  of  this  parable.  After  the  multitude  were  sent  away, 
the  disciples  came  to  Christ  with  this  request :  '  Declare  unto  us 
the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field.'  Now  if  Christ  meant  to 
teach  that  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  he  would  by  the  agency 
of  those  ungodly,  mercenary  idolaters,  the  Roman  soldiers, 
gather  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  out  of  the  material 
universe,  and  leave  nothing  but  the  doctrine  of  Universalisrn, 
he  would  have  undoubtedly  expressed  it  in  clear  and  emphatic 
language.  Did  he  do  so  ?  Look  at  his  explanation  of  his  own 
parable. 

" l  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  He  that  soweth  the  good 
seed  is  the  Son  of  man ;  the  field  is  the  world,  the  good  seed 
are  the  children  of  the  kingdom  ;  but  the  tares  are  the  children 
of  the  wicked  one  ;  the  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil ; 
the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  the  reapers  are  the 
angels.  As,  therefore,  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burned  in 
the  fire,  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Son  of 
man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity,  and 
shall  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be  wailing  and 
gnashing  of  teeth.  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the 
sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear,  let 
him  hear.'  Matt.  13  :  37-43. 

"1.  Here  we  are  taught  by  one  that  cannot  lie,  (1.)  That 
the  good  seed,  or  wheat,  when  ready  for  harvest,  is  not  Univer- 
salism,  but  '  the  children  of  the  kingdom,'  called  '  the  righteous,' 
in  v.  43.  Here  a  figure  of  rhetoric  is  used,  called  metonomy, 
in  which  the  cause  is  spoken  of  as  the  effect,  or  the  effect  as  the 
cause.  The  seed  sown  by  Christ  in  person,  or  by  the  agency  of 


Sec.  77.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  179 

his  true  ministers,  is  the  truth  ;  the  crop,  or  result,  is  the  '  chil 
dren  of  the  kingdom.'  (2.)  The  tares  in  harvest  are  not  false 
doctrines;  but  'the  children  of  the  wicked  one,'  the  natural 
product  of  false  doctrines.  False  doctrine  produces  depraved 
hearts.  Here  the  same  figure  is  used  as  before.  The  wicked 
are  frequently  spoken  of  as  the  children  of  the  master  whom 
they  serve,  or  the  principles  they  adopt.  They  are  called  the 
'  children  of  disobedience  ;  '  '  children  of  their  father,  the 
devil'  Now,  in  saying  that  the  tares  and  wheat,  not  when  sown 
as  seed,  but  when  reaped  in  as  a  harvest,  are  false  and  true  doc 
trines,  you  contradict  Christ,  who  says :  '  The  tares  are  THE 
CHILDREN  OF  THE  WICKED  one; '  the  wheat,  '  the  chil 
dren  of  the  kingdom,''  ' the  righteous* 

"2.  I  object  to  your  exposition  again,  because  it  is  absurd 
and  nonsensical.  Look  at  it.  Did  Christ  employ  the  Roman 
soldiers  —  a  wicked  and  bloody  set  of  men  as  ever  lived  —  to 
purge  his  church  and  gather  out  of  it  all  false  doctrine  ?  Did 
they,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  gather  out  the  tares  —  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment  —  from  the  field,  the  material  universe,  and 
burn  it  up  in  fire  ?  If  so,  then  it  follows  that  the  Roman  army 
which  destroyed  Jerusalem,  a  wicked  crew  of  heathen  monsters 
in  human  form,  were  the  most  successful  preachers  of  Univer- 
salism  which  the  world  has  ever  beheld.  They  reaped  down 
and  burnt  up  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  not  only  under 
the  walls  of  the  holy  city,  but  through  the  material  universe. 
Nothing  but  pure  Universalism,  of  course,  could  have  been  left 
throughout  the  material  universe. 

"  It  is  surprising  that  some  ancient  historian  has  not  chron 
icled  this  wondrous  harvest  time  of  the  Roman  army,  when  they 
so  effectually,  as  the  *  mighty  angels  '  of  the  Son  of  man, 
cleansed  not  only  the  sanctuary,  but  the  material  universe  from 
false  doctrine  and  wicked  men.  We  should  naturally  suppose 
that  Josephus,  Philo,  Tacitus,  or  Suetonius,  or  some  other  his 
torian  of  those  days,  would  have  noticed  so  extraordinary  an 
event.  But  no.  They  have  left  us  in  the  dark,  both  as  it  re- 


180  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

spccts  the  modus  operandi  and  the  fact  of  this  marvellous  cir 
cumstance.  Besides,  if  the  tares  —  false  doctrine  —  were 
gathered  out  of  the  field,  the  material  universe,  and  burnt  up 
at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  is  it  not  a  little  extraordinary, 
that  the  whole  field,  the  material  universe,  was  so  quickly  cov 
ered  over  again  with  tares  ?  For  it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  which  you 
will  not  presume  to  deny,  that  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution, 
your  tares,  has  been  adopted,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  eccle 
siastical  and  profane  history,  by  the  entire  mass  of  Jews  (the 
small  sect  of  Sadducees  exccpted)  and  Christians,  Pagans  and 
Mahommedans,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  dow7n  to  the  begin- 
ing  of  the  present  century.  Where  did  these  tares  all  come 
from  ?  I  think  your  reapers  must  have  acted  the  part  of  eye- 
servants,  and  left  large  patches  of  the  old  crop  standing,  with 
which  the  enemy  seeded  over  the  whole  field  again.  Besides, 
it  is  a  circumstance  which  I  cannot  account  for,  that  the  entire 
harvest  of  wheat,  true  doctrine  —  Universalism,  gathered  in  by 
the  angels,  Roman  army,  should  have  been  so  lost,  and  that  for 
nearly  eighteen  hundred  years  ;  for  you  are  probably  well  aware 
of  the  fact,  that  the  peculiar  system  of  Universalism  has  not  a 
single  advocate  in  all  antiquity.  True,  your  authors  tell  us  that 
Origen,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  some  other  Christian 
fathers,  were  Universalists ;  but  this  is  all  deception.  These 
men  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  a  judgment  to  come.  They 
were  Platonic  philosophers,  and  their  error  consisted  in  blending 
the  speculations  of  that  vain  philosophy  in  relation  to  the  pre- 
existence  and  transmigration  of  souls  with  Christianity.  (Sec. 
CXXXIII.) 

"3.  It  is  not  true  that  the  end  of  the  world  took  place  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  word  aion,  world,  here,  I 
admit,  does  not  mean  material  world.  It  denotes  age  or  dis 
pensation,  '  the  gospel  age,  or  dispensation.  The  Jewish  age, 
or  dispensation,  closed  thirty-seven  years  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  '  Now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world  (Jewish 
age)  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 


SeC.  77.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  181 

self.'  Heb.  9  :  26.  Now  when  did  this  take  place  ?  Not  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  he  had  appeared,  bsen  sacri- 
need,  and  reascended  to  glory,  between  thirty  and  forty  years 
before  that  event.  The  cross  was  the  boundary  line  between 
the  two  dispensations  ;  hence,  the  apostle  shows  the  necessity  of 
Christ's  death  in  order  to  introduce  the  new  dispensation.  Heb. 
9  :  16,  17.  He  then  shows,  as  we  have  seen,  that  this  had  taken 
place,  and  thus  the  New  Testament  or  gospel  dispensation  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish.  Christ,  the  great  antetype  of 
Jewish  types,  had  been  offered,  Christian  ordinances  instituted, 
the  gospel  commission  given,  and  the  gospel  had  been  preached 
all  over  the  Roman  empire,  before  the  Jewish  city  was  de 
stroyed.  Yet,  to  sustain  other  false  positions,  Universalism  as 
serts  that  the  Christian  dispensation  did  not  commence  till  Jeru 
salem  was  destroyed  !  ! 

"4.  Mr.  Whittemore's  exposition  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
'  the  righteous  shining  forth  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father,' 
will  not  stand  the  test  •  for  (1.)  It  is  not  true  that  the  Jews, 
the  enemies  and  persecutors  of  the  Christians,  were  destroyed  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Multitudes  of  the  Jews  survived 
the  destruction  of  their  city  and  temple,  nor  does  it  appear  from 
the  page  of  history,  that  their  calamities  purged  their  hearts  of 
prejudice  against  Christ  or  his  followers.  (2.)  It  is  not  true 
that  Christians,  in  consequence  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Roman  army,  experienced  any  remarkable  degree  of 
earthly  felicity.  On  the  contrary,  the  Christians  in  Judea  were 
seperated  forever  from  their  unconverted  friends,  driven  out 
from  their  houses  and  homes ;  their  property  given  to  the  flames, 
and  they  were  obliged  to  take  shelter  in  the  dens  and  caves  of 
the  earth.  Is  this  '  shining  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of 
their  Father  ?  '  Is  this  experiencing  *  earthly  felicity  ?  ' 
It  is  such  *  earthly  felicity,'  such  *  shining  forth  in  the 
kingdom,'  as  Mr.  Whittemore  would  be  unwilling  to  re 
ceive  as  his  reward  for  well  doing.  Let  a  company  of  furious 
savages  be  let  loose  upon  the  city  of  Boston  —  and  with  sword 
and  torch  in  hand,  let  them  butcher  the  helpless,  burn  the  city, 


182  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  1  = 

Trumpet  office  and  all,  break  up  the  editor's  family,  and  chase 
him  into  the  mountains  of  Vermont  —  and  he  would  be  the  last 
man  who  would  call  such  a  retreat,  such  a  disaster,  '  shining 
forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  his  Father,'  or  '  comparative 
earthly  felicity  ! ! '  (3.)  Nor  is  it  true  that  *  the  church  was 
separated  from  hypocrites  and  became  pure,'  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  No  such  fact  can  be  proved  from  history.  It  is 
a  fact  invented  to  help  out  with  this  explanation.  On  the  con 
trary,  the  church  was  more  pure  before  than  after  the  destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem.  While  the  apostles  were  alive,  the  church 
was  more  pure  in  doctrine  and  discipline,  than  at  any  period 
since.  As  these  holy  men,  one  after  another,  passed  away,  men 
continued  to  rise  in  the  church,  who  '  brought  in  damnable 
heresies.' 

"  5.  I  cannot  adopt  your  exposition  of  this  parable,  because 
it  requires  me  to  violate  an  important  rule  of  biblical  interpreta 
tion,  viz.:  That  every  explanation  of  scripture  should  be  re 
garded  as  false,  which  does  not  harmonize  ivith  well  known 
facts,  or  with  itself.  Well,  now  your  exposition  of  this  parable 
of  the  tares  and  wheat,  docs  not  harmonize  with  well  known 
facts  —  well  known  historical  facts  are  against  it.  It  does  not 
harmonize  with  itself;  hence  it  must  be  false. 

"  6.  I  cannot  adopt  your  exposition,  because  it  is  supported 
by  sophistry  and  false  application  of  scripture.  1  Cor.  3  :  12- 
15,  is  commonly  brought  forward  to  prove  that  the  tares  repre 
sent  false  doctrine,  and  not  wicked  men,  and  that  while  their 
false  doctrines  were  burnt  up  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
they  themselves  will  be  saved.  '  Now  if  any  man  build  upon 
this  foundation,  gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stub 
ble  ;  every  man's  work  shall  be  made  manifest ;  for  the  day 
shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire  ;  and  the  fire 
shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is.  If  any  man's 
work  abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  he  shall  receive  a  re 
ward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss ; 
but  he  himself  shall  be  saved;  yet  so  as  by  fire.'  1  Cor. 


SeC.   77.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE    BIBLE.  183 

3  : 12-15.  Now,  if  you  will  consult  the  preceding  context,  you 
will  readily  perceive  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  here  only  of 
believers,  those  who  have  built  their  hopes  upon  Christ,  the 
right  foundation.  *  For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than 
that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ ;  now  if  any  man 
build  upon  this  foundation"  &c.  Now  as  all  men  do  not 
build  upon  this  foundation,  so  the  text  affirms  nothing  as  to  their 
destination.  Again  :  We  are  gravely  asked,  when  we  listen  to 
Universalist  expositions  of  this  parable,  if  tares  can  become 
wheat,  or  wheat  tares.  I  answer,  Yes.  Dr.  Clarke  tells  us  that 
tares  are  a  bastard  or  degenerate  wheat.  Wheat,  then,  in  orien 
tal  countries,  sometimes  degenerates  and  becomes  tares,  and  by 
cultivation,  like  all  degenerate  plants,  may  be  reclaimed.  Tares, 
then,  among  wheat,  very  fitly  represent  degenerate  men,  who 
may  appear  like  and  with  the  righteous,  but  are  unlike  them  at 
heart.  But  if  tares  and  wheat  were  never  convertible,  still 
there  would  be  no  impropriety  in  employing  tares  to  represent 
the  wicked  in  the  final  judgment.  Sheep  cannot  be  converted 
into  goats,  nor  goats  into  sheep,  and  yet  Christ  likens  the 
righteous  to  sheep  and  the  wicked  to  goats.  This  you  will 
admit.  So  the  argument  built  upon  the  false  premises,  that 
wheat  can  never  become  tares,  falls  to  the  ground. 

"7.  It  is  an  outrage  upon  good  sense,  to  call  the  Roman 
army,  a  class  of  human  butchers,  the  angels  of  Christ.  No 
where  in  the  New  Testament,  are  wicked  men  or  devils  spoken 
of  as  the  angels  of  Christ. 

"  8.  The  Roman  army  did  not  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  do  either  what  Christ  says  is  to  be 
done  at  the  harvest  by  his  angels,  or  what  Universalist  exposi 
tors  represent  them  as  doing.  They  did  not  *  gather  out  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  all  things  that  offend,  nor  them  which  do 
iniquity ;  '  nor  did  they  gather  out  of  the  church,  or  out  of  the 
whole  or  any  part  of  the  material  universe  false  doctrines.  If 
Universalism  be  true,  they  gathered  out  of  the  earth,  I  will  ad 
mit,  some  thousands  of  wicked  Jews,  and  gave  them  a  passport 
by  the  sword  to  the  world  of  the  blessed. 


184  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"  9.  I  reject  your  exposition  of  the  parable  of  the  tares  and 
wheat,  because  this  parable  was  evidently  designed  to  represent 
the  same  event  with  the  parable  of  the  drag-net  which  Christ 
delivered  on  the  same  occasion. 

"  '  Again:  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  net,  that 
was  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind  ;  which,  when 
it  was  full,  they  drew  to  shore,  and  sat  down,  and  gathered  the 
good  into  vessels,  but  cast  the  bad  away.  So  shall  it  be  at  the 
end  of  the  world  :  the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever  the 
wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  shall  cast  them  into  the  fur 
nace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth.' 
Matt.  13:47-50. 

"  Here  the  bad  fish  is  evidently  designed  to  represent  the 
same  thing  as  the  tares  ;  their  being  seperated  from  the  good  by 
the  angels  at  the  end  of  the  gospel  age,  or  world,  cannot  be  said 
to  represent  the  purging  out  of  false  doctrine,  without  giving  the 
lie  direct  to  the  Son  of  God.  '  Angels  shall  come  forth  and 
sever  THE  WICKED  from  among  the  just.'  Can  language  be 
more  plain  ? 

"  In  fine,  I  have  carefully  examined  your  standard  authors  on 
this  parable.  I  have  frequently  heard  your  preachers  attempt 
to  explain  it  away.  I  have  also  carefully  examined  the  explana 
tion  which  Christ  has  given  of  his  own  words  as  therein  em 
ployed,  and  I  find  so  much  that  is  false  in  point  of  fact,  absurd 
and  contradictory  in  itself  considered,  in  the  Universalist  expo 
sition  ;  while  in  the  exposition  given  by  the  Saviour  himself,  I 
find  so  much  that  is  natural,  easy,  and  obvious  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind  ;  that  I  hope  you  will  not  regard  it  as  disre 
spectful  to  you,  or  fanatical  in  me,  to  wholly  decline  the  adop 
tion  of  your  exposition,  while  I  take  that  of  the  Son  of  God." 

LXXVItl.  "  For  as  much  then  as  the  children  are  par 
takers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  took  part  of  the  same  ;  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  hath  the  power  of 


Sec.  78.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  185 

death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and  deliver  them,  who,  through  fear 
of  death,  are  all  their  life  time  subject  to  bondage"  Heb.  2  : 
14,  15. 

This  passage  is  brought  by  Universalists  to  prove  that  sin 
and  the  punishment  of  wicked  men  will  have  an  end,  because 
the  devil  will  be  destroyed.  But  before  this  text  can  avail 
them  anything,  they  must  prove  that  destruction,  in  the  sense 
here  used,  means  annihilation,  and  this  they  cannot,  do  since, 
it  is  often  said  that  the  wicked  shall  be  destroyed,  who,  they 
contend,  will  live  in  the  enjoyment  of  bliss  forever.  See  2 
Thess.  1:9.  But  were  we  to  admit  the  annihilation  of  the 
devil,  could  that  fact  be  brought  in  proof  that  all  men  will  be 
saved  ?  By  no  means,  for  the  death  that  he  has  the  power  of 
is  not  spiritual  or  eternal  death,  but  the  death  of  the  body,  as 
will  bo  seen  by  a  moment's  attention  to  the  passage.  It  is  pre 
sumed  that  no  one  supposes  that  the  word  death,  which  occurs 
three  times  in  this  passage,  is  to  be  understood  in  different 
senses.  We  ask,  then,  what  death  did  Christ  die  ?  It  was  not 
a  spiritual  death,  for  he  "  did  no  sin."  It  was  most  certainly 
the  death  of  the  body ;  the  death  which  was  a  consequence  of 
his  partaking  of  flesh  and  blood,  verse  14.  Then  it  must  surely 
be  the  death  of  the  body  which  the  devil  has  power  over,  and 
Christ  by  his  resurrection  has  so  destroyed  (not  annihilated) 
him,  as  that  he  has  lost  that  power,  and  hence  all  shall  be  raised 
from  the  dead.  But  this  proves  no. thing  in  favor  of  the  salva 
tion  of  all  men,  for  while  we  learn  from  the  scriptures  that  by 
the  resurrection  the  "  vile  body"  shall  be  changed,  (Phil.  3  : 
21,)  it  is  nowhere  asserted  that  the  vile  soul  shall  be  changed 
by  that  event.  That  by  the  devil  is  meant  sin  personified, 
is  assumption  without  proof.  The  apostle  was  not  in  the  habit 
of  adopting  this  blind  method  in  speaking  of  sin,  as  all  his 
epistles  show.  On  the  personality  of  the  devil,  see  Section 
XCVIII.  The  promise  of  a  seed  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head 
(Gen.  3 : 15,)  is  sometimes  presented  in  connection  with  this 
passage,  which  informs  us  that  Christ  took  flesh,  "  that  through 


186  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

death  he  might  destroy  him  that  hath  the  power  of  death,  that 
is,  the  devil."  "  If  the  latter  of  these  passages  explains  the 
former,  then  both  were  accomplished  when  Christ  died  and  rose 
from  the  dead ;  and  by  destroying  the  devil  the  apostle  does  not 
mean  a  literal  destruction,  but  a  destruction  of  his  power,  by 
which  he  held  the  children  of  God  in  bondage  through  the  fear 
of  death,  ver.  15.  And  the  apostle  applies  this  to  the  time 
which  then  was,  and  not  to  the  future  state.  If  then  it  proves 
universal  salvation,  it  must  be  that  all  men  are  now,  and  have 
been  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  saved,  and  the  devil  destroy 
ed  !"  Merritt.  It  has  been  denied  by  Universalists  that  Christ 
ever  came  into  this  world  to  save  us  in  the  next  (Sec.  XXIX.) 
and  Mr.  Whittemore  says,  "  The  evils  from  which  Jesus  came 
to  save  men  are  in  this  world,  and  for  this  reason  he  came  into 
this  world  to  save  them.  Guide,  p.  254.  Yet  he  takes  the 
passage  we  have  been  considering,  which  treats  of  Christ's 
coming  into  this  world  and  his  work,  to  prove  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  eternity !  Guide,  p.  51.  Truth  never  demands 
such  zigzag  work  to  sustain  it. 

LXXIX.  "  And  saw  heaven  opened,  and  a  certain  vessel 
descending,"  &c.  Acts  10  : 10-16. 

The  following  is  Mr.  Whittemore's  whole  argument  to  prove 
Universalism  from  Peter's  vision.  "  Peter  saw,  in  the  vision  of 
the  vessel  like  a  sheet  knit  at  the  four  corners,  that  all  men 
came  down  from  heaven ;  that  they  are  all  encircled  in  the  kind 
care  of  God,  while  here  on  earth ;  and,  that  all  will  be  drawn 
up  again  into  heaven."  Guide,  p.  44.  Well  done,  Mr. 
Whittemore  !  Reader,  are  you  not  captivated  ?  All  men  came 
down  from  heaven,  and  are  placed  upon  earth,  and  all  will  be 
drawn  up  again  into  heaven  !  So  it  seems  that  the  whole  race 
of  man,  all  who  have  lived,  now  live,  or  may  hereafter  live, 
have  once  been  holy  and  happy  in  heaven,  and  while  in  this 
place  of  bliss  the  Lord  put  them  out  and  let  them  down  to  earth 
to  suffer,  as  a  race,  six  thousand  years  or  more,  and  then  he  is 


SeC.   80.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  187 

to  draw  them  all  up  to  heaven  again.  How  does  this  comport 
with  the  idea  of  a  kind  father,  about  which  Universalists  say  so 
much  ?  Would  a  kind  earthly  parent  do  thus  ?  But  the  suf 
ferings  of  earth  are  doubtless  rendered  less  intense  by  the  fact 
that  but  few  remember  that  they  once  lived  in  heaven.  We 
doubt  if  the  author  of  the  Guide,  with  all  his  acumen,  has  any 
recollection  of  it.  People  have,  very  generally,  been  in  the 
habit  of  thinking  that  all  have  not  lived  upon  this  earth  an 
equal  length  of  time,  hence  the  distinctions,  in  language  at  least, 
of  old  and  young  that  have  obtained.  Many,  too,  have  been  in 
the  way  of  thinking  that  some  have  already  gone  to  heaven 
while  others  linger  below.  But  progress  is  a  characteristic  of 
the  age,  and  we  now  see  by  Peter's  vision,  while  Mr.  Whittemore 
holds  the  candle,  that  these  views  are  all  wrong,  for  the  whole 
human  race  came  down  from  heaven  at  the  same  time,  remain 
on  earth  the  same  length  of  time,  and  will  all  be  taken  to 
heaven  at  the  same  time.  This  is  Universalist  divinity.  Ad 
mirable  !  But  to  be  serious.  What  instruction  did  this  vision 
convey  to  Peter  ?  Was  it  that  all  were  to  be  saved  in  heaven  ? 
Nothing  like  it.  It  was  this:  "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him  and  worTceth  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him." 
Ver.  34,  35.  Peter  had  conscientious  scruples  against  asso 
ciating  and  eating  with  the  Gentiles,  which  of  course  would 
debar  him  from  preaching  the  gospel  to  them.  God  took  this 
method  to  divest  Peter's  mind  of  these  scruples  and  prejudices, 
and  he  saw  clearly  that  God  would  accept  all  of  every  nation 
who  feared  him  and  wrought  righteousness.  This  is  a  very  dif 
ferent  thing  from  the  salvation  of  all,  whether  they  fear  God 
and  work  righteousness  here  or  not.  To  fear  God  does  not 
sound  well  in  Universalist  ears.  (Sec.  LXIX.) 

LXXX.  "  And  Enoch,  also,  the  seventh  from  Adam, 
prophesied  of  these,  saying,  behold,  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten 
thousand  of  his  saints,  to  execute  judgment  upon  all,  and  to 


188  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

convince  all  that  are  ungodly  among  them  of  all  their  ungodly 
deeds  which  they  have  ungodlily  committed,  and  of  all  their 
hard  speeches  which  ungodly  sinners  have  spoken  against 
him:'  Jude  14,  15. 

The  author  of  the  Guide  favors  us  with  no  light  upon  this 
striking  passage.  Mr.  Balfour  finds  in  it  a  prophesy  of  Jeru 
salem's  destruction.  But  how  false  and  absurd  to  say  that  the 
Lord  came  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints  to  execute  judgment 
upon  all  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Did  thousands  of 
saints  come  with  Christ  to  Jerusalem  ?  Christ  did  not  come 
himself  at  that  event;  (Sec.  XLIII.)  and  as  to  his  saints,  he 
contradicts  this  absurd  exposition  by  representing  it  as  a  time 
when  they  should  flee  from  Judea  into  the  mountains,  (Matt. 
24  : 16-20,)  instead  of  coming  with  him,  as  those  who  wrest  the 
scriptures  assert.  As  this  interpretation  contradicts  the  Saviour, 
no  more  need  be  said  to  refute  it.  This  passage  refers  to  the 
great  day  of  which  we  read  so  much  in  the  scriptures,  when 
Christ  shall  come  as  judge  " to  execute  judgment  upon  all" 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  See  Sec.  XLIX. 

LXXXI.  "Marvel  not  at  this;  for  the  hour  is  coming 
in  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice, 
and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life ;  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the 
resurrection  of  damnation"  John  5  :  28,  29. 

But  few  texts  have  given  more  trouble  to  Universalists  than 
this,  and  many  are  the  labored  articles  they  have  written  to 
destroy  its  force.  Sometimes  it  denotes  a  moral  resurrection, 
and  then  again  it  is  a  figurative  one,  and  had  its  fulfilment  when 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  We  are  favored  with  criticisms  to 
show  that  the  Greek  word  anastasis,  rendered  resurrection,  does 
not  always  mean  a  literal  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  that 
damnation  does  not  necessarily  imply  endless  punishment,  to 
gether  with  the  usual  display  of  scripture  references  and  ortho 
dox  authorities.  Mr.  S.  Cobb,  sees  the  Jerusalem  catastrophe 


Sec.  81.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  189 

most  clearly  in  the  passage,  and  discourses  thus  :  "  When  the 
terrible  calamities  began  to  break  forth  upon  them,  (the  Jews,) 
then  they  waked  from  the  dust ;  then  were  they  called  forth 
from  their  graves,  or  their  secret  places,  in  which  they  had 
been  sleeping  —  they  were  roused  from  their  dormancy.     They 
came  forth  to  a  sense  of  their  own  shame,  to  the  resurrection  of 
their  own  condemnation  —  and  suffered  that  dreadful  punish 
ment,  of  which  Moses  and  the   prophets,  and   the  Son  of  God, 
had  so  repeatedly   forewarned  them.     And  this  judgment  did 
not  affect  the  wicked  alone ;  it  affected  the  faithful  disciples  of 
Jesus,  also.     It  called  them  forth  into  a  more  full  enjoyment  of 
life  and  happiness.     They  had  been   pressed  down  under  griev 
ous  persecutions,  and  the  calamities  of  war  prevailed  in  all  the 
land.     And  when  every  thing  in  the  natural  world  appeared 
blackness  and  darkness,  no  doubt  considerable  darkness  brooded 
over   their   minds."     After   assuming   that  a  very   wonderful 
change  took  place  in  the  temporal   and  spiritual  condition  of 
Christians   at  the   destruction   of  Jerusalem,  Mr.  Cobb   adds, 
"  Now  this  important  change  in  the  condition  of  the  disciples,  so 
wonderfully  wrought,  was  as  properly  called  their  coming  forth 
from  the  graves,  through  the  authority  of  Christ,  to  the  resur 
rection,  as  the  redemption  of  the  Jews  from  Babylonish  captivity 
into  their  land,  was  called  of  the  Lord  by  Ezekiel,  the  bringing 
them  up   from  their  graves,  to  inherit  the  land  of  Israel ;   and 
equally  striking   is  the  declaration,  They  that   have  done  evil 
shall  come  forth  to  the  resurrection  of  condemnation,  to  express 
the  effectual  arousing   of  the  wicked  and  unbelieving  from  their 
graves  of  secrecy  and  their  refuge  of  lies,  to  misery,  shame  and 
contempt.     Trumpet,  No.   669.     In  the  same  number  of  the 
Trumpet,  Mr.  Whittemore,  speaking  of  Mr.   Cobb's  interpreta 
tion,  says,    "  it  is  maintained  by  the  Universalist  denomination 
with  hardly  an  exception."     So  Mr.  W.  endorses  it  in  behalf 
of  the  order.     From  these  expounders,  then,  we   learn   that 
"  all  that  are  in  the  graves"  were  Jews  and  Christians,  and  that 
these  both  experienced  a  resurrection  at  Jerusalem's  destruction, 


190  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  former  to  damnation  and  the  latter  to  life.  But  were  Jews 
and  Christians  raised  then  ?  Let  us  contemplate  the  Jews  in 
the  light  of  history.  This  informs  us  that  Jerusalem  was  be 
sieged  six  months  by  the  Roman  army,  that  eleven  hundred 
thousand  Jews  perished  in  the  city,  and  some  hundreds  of 
thousands  out  of  it ;  that  the  city  and  temple  were  totally  de 
stroyed,  that  the  Jews  ceased  to  be  a  nation,  were  cast  down 
from  the  high  privileges  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed,  and  that 
large  numbers  of  them  were  consigned  to  hopeless  bondage. 
This  must  be  called  a  resurrection  !  What  is  said  about  the 
Jews  being  "  waked  from  the  dust,"  "  called  forth  from  their 
secret  places,"  &c.,  is  mere  home-made  cloth,  and  proves  nothing 
but  the  weakness  of  the  cause  it  is  designed  to  support.  There 
is  a  beauty  and  propriety  in  the  use  of  the  figure  in  Ezekiel's 
vision,  (Ez.  37  : 11-14,)  it  being  there  used  to  show  that  the 
Jews  as  a  nation  would  be  brought  up  out  of  their  degradation 
and  bondage  in  Babylon  to  the  civil  and  religious  privileges  for 
which  they  were  afterwards  distinguished.  But  in  the  case 
before  us,  the  reverse  is  the  fact.  They  now  became  degraded 
instead  of  being  raised.  Their  national  character  and  privileges 
were  now  taken  away  instead  of  being  restored.  They  now, 
keeping  Ezekiel's  figure  in  view,  were  sent  down  into  their 
graves  instead  of  coming  forth  from  them.  All  must  see  the 
sophistry  of  producing  Ezekiel's  vision  to  patch  up  this  interpre 
tation.  Again,  these  interpreters  are  quite  sure  that  by  John 
8  :  21,  "Ye  shall  die  in  your  sins,"  is  meant  the  death  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  which  took  place  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed. 
Guide,  page  164.  So  their  exposition  of  John  8  :21,  and  of 
John  5  : 28,  29,  when  taken  together,  amounts  to  this  :  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  the  Jewish  nation  both  took  place  at  the 
same  time  and  by  the  same  event,  viz. :  the  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem  !  !  Error  is  ever  inconsistent  with  itself. 

But  Christians  also  came  forth  from  their  graves  to  the  resur 
rection  of  life  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  Now  we  ask  in 
what  sense  Christians  were  dead  and  in  their  graves  before  that 


Sec.  81.]  UNIYERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  191 

event  ?  Were  they  spiritually  dead  ?  Then  were  they  not 
Christians.  Were  they  inactive  in  their  Master's  cause? — 
Never  were  Christians  more  active  and  devoted  than  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Such  was  their  zeal,  that  the  gospel, 
before  that  event,  had  not  only  ' '  spread  through  the  Roman 
empire,  but  even  to  India  and  Parthia."  Porteus'  Evidences. 
Was  darkness  brooding  over  their  minds,  as  Mr.  Cobb  would 
have  us  believe  ?  Of  this  there  is  no  evidence  whatever. 
What !  is  Christianity  a  mere  creature  of  circumstances  ?  Must 
gloom  and  darkness  brood  over  Christian  minds  in  times  of 
temporal  calamities  ?  The  martyrs  were  happy  in  the  flames, 
and  it  is  one  of  the  chief  glories  of  Christianity  that  it  can  ren 
der  its  recipients  happy  independent  of  outward  things.  They 
can  "rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad  when  persecuted."  Matt. 
5  :  12.  True  Christians  have  done  this  in  all  ages  of  the 
church ;  but  to  serve  a  rotten  system,  it  must  be  now  made  to 
appear  that  early  Christians  were  a  gloomy,  disconsolate, 
wretched,  inactive  people  who  were  represented  by  the  Saviour 
as  in  their  graves,  needing  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  raise 
them  to  life  and  make  them  happy  !  To  say  nothing  of  the 
perversion,  we  ask  where  is  the  man,  knowing  anything  of  the 
power  of  the  gospel  upon  his  own  heart,  who  can  for  a  moment 
believe  this  ?  But  did  not  Christians  experience  some  great 
temporal  blessing  at  Jerusalem's  overthrow  ?  In  Matt.  24  :  9, 
which  Universalists  apply  to  this  event,  we  learn  what  reward 
Christ's  followers  received  at  that  time.  "  Then  shall  they  de 
liver  yOu  up  to  be  afflicted,  and  shall  kill  you ;  and  ye  shall  be 
hated  of  all  nations  for  my  name's  sake."  See,  also,  ver.  16— 
18.  Was  this  their  reward  for  having  done  good?  But  it  is 
said  that  they  were  raised  to  great  privileges,  and  entered  into 
great  rest  from  persecution  after  the  power  of  the  Jews  was 
broken.  But  what  evidence  is  furnished  of  this  ?  Just  none 
at  all ;  but  on  the  contrary  we  learn  that  Christians  were  perse 
cuted  in  a  manner  unparalleled  for  at  least  two  hundred  years  after 
Jerusalem  was  sacked  by  the  Romans.  (Sec.  XXVI.)  Was 


192  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

this  their  resurrection  to  life  ?  Universalists,  upon  this  and  a 
few  other  texts,  would  make  it  appear  that  deliverance  from  the 
Jewish  power  was  a  great  blessing  to  Christians,  and  that  the 
Roman  power  was  not  to  be  dreaded,  for  under  it  great  rest  and 
privileges  were  to  be  enjoyed  ;  but  in  their  work  on  Matt.  10  : 
28,  they  will  have  it  that  Christ  is  instructing  his  disciples  not  to 
fear  the  Jews,  but  to  greatly  fear  the  Roman  power !  (Sec. 
XCII.)  And  thus  the  serpent  bites  himself  again.  All  must 
see  at  a  glance  the  perversion  of  the  text  when  applied  to  Jeru 
salem's  destruction. 

But  some  take  the  position  that  a  moral  or  spiritual  resurrec 
tion  is  intended  in  ver.  25,  of  this  chapter,  and  that  the  same 
construction  is  to  be  given  to  verses  28  and  29.  But  this  re 
duces  the  Saviour's  language  to  nonsense.  Hear  it :  "  There  is 
to  be  a  spiritual  resurrection  ;  marvel  not  at  this,  there  is  to  be 
a  spiritual  resurrection  !  "  Such  senseless  tautology  was  never 
uttered  by  the  Great  Teacher,  and  the  construction  which  re 
quires  it  must  be  false.  The  text  paraphrased  upon  this  princi 
ple  stands  thus  :  ' '  Marvel  not  at  this,  for  the  spiritually  alive 
(they  that  have  done  good)  shall  come  forth  from  their  spiritual 
graves  and  be  made  spiritually  alive  ;  and  they  that  are  spirit 
ually  dead  (have  done  evil)  shall  come  forth  from  their  spiritual 
graves  and  be  made  spiritually  alive  by  a  spiritual  resurrection 
to  damnation  !  !  " 

If  the  same  resurrection  is  taught  in  ver.  25  that  is  in  verses 
28  and  29,  then  it  must  be  obvious  to  all  that  the  death  and  res 
urrection  must  bo  exactly  the  opposites  the  one  to  the  other.  If 
the  resurrection  is  a  spiritual  or  moral  one,  then  the  death  is  a 
moral  death,  i.  c.,  a  death  "  in  trespasses  and  in  sins."  "To  come 
forth  from  this  death  is  to  come  forth  to  a  life  of  purity  and 
happiness."  Well,  then,  "the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all 
that  are  in  the  graves  of  sin  and  moral  death  shall  come  forth  ; 
they  that  have  done  good!  "  What!  done  good?  Dead  and 
buried  in  sin,  and  yet  be  doing  good?  Is  a  man  when  dead 
and  buried,  alive,  in  the  very  sense  in  which  he  is  dead  ?  Dead 


Sec.  81.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  193 

in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  yet  the  condition  of  their  coming  forth 
unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  (that  is,  holiness  and  purity,)  is 
their  having  done  good,  that  is,  having  been  holy  and  pure, 
\vhile  dead  and  buried  in  sin.  But  look  at  the  other  part  of 
the  verse.  "  They  that  have  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of 
damnation"  Of  course  all  that  were  dead",  had  done  evil,  if  the 
death  was  a  death  in  trespasses  and  sins.  To  come  forth  from 
this  death,  is  to  come  forth  to  a  life  of  holiness  and  purity,  and 
yet  this  holiness  and  purity  is  the  resurrection  of  damnation  ! 
May  the  good  Lord  deliver  us  from  such  holiness  and  purity. 
Such  a  construction  resolves  the  whole  passage  into  a  mass  of 
absurd  nonsense."  Rev.  C.  Kingsley. 

The  Universalist  commentator  assumes  that  a  spiritual  resur 
rection  is  intended,  and  of  course  denies  that  Christ  speaks  of 
the  immortal  resurrection.  He  says:  "Whenever  the  sacred 
writers  mention  a  retribution,  they  are  silent  in  regard  to  a  res 
urrection  ;  and  whenever  they  mention  a  resurrection  to  immor 
tality,  they  are  silent  in  regard  to  a  retribution.  If  we  inter 
pret  this  passage,  therefore,  to  mean  a  resurrection  of  mankind 
from  natural  death  to  immortality,  some  to  happiness  and  some 
to  misery,  we  must  do  it  in  defiance  of  the  invariable  usage  of 
the  New  Testament  writers."  Page  in  loco. 

Here  it  is  asserted  that  a  resurrection  to  immortality  is  never 
spoken  of  by  the  sacred  writers  in  connection  with  a  retribution. 
The  falsity  of  this  is  seen  not  only  from  the  passage  under  con 
sideration,  but  also  in  Heb.  6:2,  where  Paul,  in  giving  a  sum 
mary  of  Christian  doctrines,  speaks  of  the  resurrection  in  con 
nection  with  eternal  judgment.  (Sec.  LVI.)  Mr.  Page  avails 
himself  of  Mr.  Balfour's  favorite  rule  of  "scripture  usage" 
a  handy  method  by  which  to  set  aside  a  plain  declaration  of 
God,  if  he  has  not  repeated  it  in  the  same  language  elsewhere. 
So  the  Saviour  must  not  be  understood  to  mean  what  he  appears 
to  mean  in  John  5  :  28,  29,  because  the  scriptures  nowhere  else 
assert  the  same  thing  in  the  same  form  of  language  ;  as  though 
God  is  not  to  be  believed  unless  he  announces  the  same  thing  in 


194  tJNIVEllSALISM    NO?    OP    DttE   BIBLE.  [Part 


the  same  form  a  dozen  times.  Christ  says  :  "  God  is  a  spirit, 
and  Universalists  profess  to  believe  it.  Now  what  is  "  scrip 
ture  usage  "  upon  this?  God's  nature  and  attributes  are  often 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  but  nowhere,  save  in  John  4 : 24,  is  it 
asserted  that  "  God  is  a  spirit."  Are  we  to  conclude  from  this 
fact,  that  the  spirituality  of  the  Divine  Being  is  not  taught  by 
the  Saviour?  By  no  means.  Speaking  of  the  words  graves 
and  resurrection,  Mr.  Page  says  :  "It  is  certain  that  the  two 
words  are  not  thus  connected  in  any  other  place  in  the  New  Tes 
tament/' 

This  is  said  to  bear  against  a  literal  resurrection.  But  we 
might  with  equal  force  say  of  the  words  God  and  Spirit,  that 
"  it  is  certain  that  the  two  words  are  not  thus  connected  in  any 
other  place  in  the  "  whole  Bible,  and  thus  prove  that  God  is  not 
a  spirit !  But  such  work  would  be  worse  than  trifling,  as  all 
must  see,  yet  it  is  just  the  work  of  Universalist  expositors. 
They  assert,  too,  that  all  will  be  saved  in  the  resurrection ;  but 
neither  the  word  saved  or  salvation  is  found  in  connection  with 
the  word  resurrection,  when  spoken  of  the  immortal  state,  in 
either  the  Old  or  New  Testament.  Is  it  just  to  conclude  from 
this,  that  none  will  be  saved  in  the  resurrection  ?  If  so,  where 
is  Universalism  ?  We  have  met  with  another  quibble,  as  fol 
lows  :  "  If  the  passage  refers  to  the  immortal  state,  then  all 
must  be  saved  and  all  must  damned,  since  all  have  done  some 
good  and  all  have  done  some  evil."  Now  what  of  force  there 
is  in  this  lies  equally  against  any  other  application.  Is  it  re 
ferred  to  Jerusalem's  destruction  ?  Were  each  class,  Jews  and 
Christians,  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  and  each  saved  from  that 
destruction  ?  No  more  upon  this  need  be  said. 

Another  twist  of  the  serpent  is  this  :  "  If  the  immortal  res 
urrection  is  intended,  then  only  those  will  be  raised  who  have 
done  good  or  evil,  and  thus  infants  are  excluded."  In  reply 
we  say,  If  a  Umversalist  Jerusalem  resurrection  is  intended, 
then  only  those  were  to  be  raised  who  had  done  good  or  evil,  and 
thus  infants  are  excluded.  But  among  the  eleven  hundred 


1 

If 


Sec.  81.]  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE*  195 

thousand  that  perished  in  that  resurrection,  (!)  were  there  no 
infants  ?  History  informs  us  that  mothers  devoured  their  own 
infant  offspring,  in  that  dreadful  siege,  called  by  our  opponents 
a  resurrection.  It  does  not  follow  that  no  infants  will  be  raised, 
merely  because  they  are  not  named  by  the  Saviour ;  for  observe, 
he  does  not  say  that  those  only  are  to  be  raised  who  have  done 
good  and  evil,  but  all  are  to  come  forth  from  their  graves.  He 
then  speaks  of  the  retribution  of  moral  agents,  and  omits  naming 
infants  for  the  good  reason  that  he  was  addressing  adults,  and 
his  words  were  designed  to  influence  moral  agents  in  all  suc 
ceeding  ages  of  the  church  ;  and  this  omission  no  more  excludes 
infants  from  salvation,  than  women  are  excluded  from  the  benefits 
of  the  Saviour's  death  by  the  assertion  of  Paul,  that  Christ 
"  tasted  death  for  every  MAN ;  "  thus  omitting  to  name 
women. 

One  more  subterfuge  :  "  This  cannot  refer  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  bodies  of  men,  for  multitudes  of  the  dead  are  not  in  theii? 
graves  at  all."  This  is  a  most  peurile  objection.  All  must  see 
that  the  general  expression,  "  all  that  are  in  the  graves,"  means 
all  the  dead,  all  within  the  empire  of  death,  whether  in  the  dust 
of  the  earth  or  in  the  sea.  Observe,  this  was  addressed  to  Jews, 
who  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  all  men  constituting  two 
classes,  denominated  "the  just  and  unjust."  Acts  24:15. 
We  learn  from  Josephus  that  the  Jews  believed  that  all  men, 
the  just  and  the  unjust,  would  be  raised  and  brought  before 
God,  the  Word,  or  Christ,  and  be  judged  by  him  according  to 
their  works  :  that  he  should  pass  upon  them  a  just  sentence, 
"by  giving  justly  to  those  who  have  done  well  an  everlasting 
fruition  ;  but  allotting  to  the  lovers  of  wicked  works  eternal  pun 
ishment."  Dis.  on  Hades.  Paul  declared  he  believed  as  the 
Pharisees  did  concerning  the  resurrection.  (Sec.  X.)  Taking 
into  connection  the  Saviour's  words,  and  the  belief  of  the  Jews, 
can  any  be  at  a  loss  to  know  how  they  must  have  understood 
him  ?  They  must  have  understood  him  as  teaching  the  resur 
rection  in  their  sense,  for  he  qualifies  nothing.  He  gives  no  ex- 


196  UNIVERSAL!^  NO?  OF  THE  BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

planation,  showing  that  he  is  using  their  doctrine  of  a  future 
state  as  a  figure  to  convey  the  idea  of  spiritual  life  and  death  in 
this  world,  or  temporal  calamities  upon  their  nation.  He  gave 
the  Jews  (ver.  25-27)  instruction  relative  to  a  spiritual  resur 
rection,  and  his  power  and  authority  to  execute  judgment,  be 
cause  he  was  the  Son  of  man  or  the  Messiah.  At  this  they 
were  astonished,  and  the  Saviour  seeing  it,  said  :  "  Marvel  not 
at  this,  (for  this  is  no  more  surprising  than  the  doctrine  of  the  res 
urrection,  already  admitted  by  you,)  for  the  hour  is  coming  in  the 
which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  (making  a  distinction  between 
those  morally  and  those  literally  dead),  shall  hear  his  voice,  and 
shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrec 
tion  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil,  to  the  resurrection  of 
damnation."  "  If  the  Saviour  here  is  speaking  of  men  dead  in 
sin,  and  representing  them  as  buried,  he  would,  to  have  pre 
served  sense,  have  represented  the  good  as  being  alive.  But 
both  classes,  the  good  and  the  evil,  are  dead ;  both  are  in  their 
graves ;  both  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  both  come 
forth  from  their  graves,  the  one  to  a  resurrection  of  life,  the 
other  to  a  resurrection  of  damnation"  This  passage  of  itself 
is  an  ever-enduring  refutation  of  Universalism,  and  the  Bush 
theory  of  the  resurrection.  See  Sec.  LL  whore  a  resurrection 
and  judgment  at  the  end  of  time  are  proved ;  also,  Sec.  XXVI, 
and  LXI.  on  the  coming  of  Christ,  where  the  same  is  shown. 

LXXXII.  "  Thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done.'"  Matt. 
6:10. 

"  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.     Rom.  14:  23. 

In  No.  634  of  the  Trumpet,  is  the  following  weighty  affair 
thrown  in  by  the  editor  : 

"Partialists  say  that  Universalism  is  the  devil's  doctrine; 
and  yet  they  all  pray  that  it  may  be  true.  Is  this  praying  — 
'  thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be  done.'  " 

The  assertion  that  all  pray  that  Universalism  may  be  true,  is 
very  common,  and  as  false  as  it  is  common.  No  understanding 
Christian  ever  prays  that  Universalism  may  be  true,  or  false,  or 


Sec.   82.]  UNIVERSALISH    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


197 


that  any  other  doctrine  may  be  so.  Doctrines  are  principles  of 
the  Divine  government,  and  no  more  to  be  changed  than -God 
himself  is  to  be  changed.  God's  truth  is  immutable,  whatever 
that  truth  may  be.  Christians  do  not  pray  for  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  the  Univcrsalist  sense,  for, 

1.  They  believe  there  are  millions  of  souls  already  saved, 
and,  of  course,  for  these  they  do  not  pray. 

2.  They  believe  there  are  millions  of  souls  already  lost :  for 
these  they  do  not  pray. 

When  they  use  universal  language  in  their  prayers,  they  have 
respect  to  men  who  are  on  probation,  and  to  certain  scripture 
promises  which  are  to  be  fulfilled  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  church  and  the  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  whose  aid  is 
promised  if  asked,  and  not  to  the  whole  human  race,  i.  e.,  all 
who  ever  have  lived,  now  live,  or  may  hereafter  live  on  this 
earth. 

In  assuming  that  Christians  pray  for  all  men  in  the  above 
named  sense,  Universalists  connect  with  it  Rom.  14  :  23,  and 
consider  it  a  great  argument  in  favor  of  their  views.  The  follow 
ing  is  a  specimen  of  this  kind  of  sophistry,  found  in  the  Univer- 
salist  Companion,  for  1841  : 

"  If,  then,  we  pray  for  the  salvation  of  all  mankind,  and  at 
the  same  time  do  not  believe  that  our  prayers  will  be  answered, 
or,  in  other  words,  do  not  believe  that  all  will  be  saved ;  do  we 
pray  in  faith  ?  And  are  such  prayers  acceptable  to  God  ?  Ans. 
*  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.9  Rom.  14  :  23." 

We  have  shown  that  Christians  do  not  pray  for  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  the  sense  here  named.  We  now  ask.  for  what  do  Uni- 
versalists  pray  ?  Their  ministers  stand  up  before  the  people,  and 
pray  for  all  men.  What  do  they  mean  by  it  ?  Is  it  that  all  may 
be  saved  from  an  endless  hell  in  the  future  state  ?  No.  They 
deny  that  men  are  exposed  to  such  a  punishment.  Furthermore, 
they  no  more  believe  that  our  praying  will  in  any  way  affect  the 
salvation  of  men  in  the  future  state,  than  that  whistling  or  swear 
ing  will  effect  its  accomplishment.  To  admit  that  men  are  in  any 


198  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

way  exposed  to  endless  punishment,  would  be  fatal  to  their  whole 
theory,  as  they  well  know.  It  is  not,  then,  for  the  salvation  of 
men  in  the  future  state  that  they  pray.  For  what,  then,  do  they 
pray,  when  they  use  universal  language  in  their  prayers  ?  If 
they  do  not  pray  in  reference  to  the  future  world,  it  must  be 
that  they  have  reference  to  the  salvation  experienced  in  this. 
Well,  do  they  really  believe,  when  they  pray,  that  all  men  in 
the  Universalist  sense,  i.  e.,  all  that  ever  have  lived,  and  that 
now  live,  will  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  be  saved 
in  this  world  ?  Certainly  they  do  not ;  for  such  a  thing  is  im 
possible.  Notice,  then,  they  do  not  believe  that  all,  or  any 
men  will  be  saved  in  the  future  state,  in  answer  to  prayer  ;  for 
all  will  be  saved  independent  of  prayer,  or  anything  else  done 
here.  Neither  do  they  believe  that  all  will  be  saved  in  this 
world.  Reader,  remember  this  when  a  zealous  disciple  of  Uni- 
versalism  presents  this  weighty  argument.  Question  him  upon 
these  points,  and  be  careful  to  tell  him  that  "  whatsoever  is  not 
of  faith  is  sin." 

Questions  are  sometimes  put  as  follows :  Can  you  pray  that 
one  soul  may  be  damned  to  all  eternity  ?  and  if  you  cannot, 
ought  you  to  believe  that  for  which  you  cannot  pray  ?  In 
answer  to  the  first  question  we  say,  No  ;  and  to  the  last  we  say, 
Yes.  Sufficient  reason  for  these  answers  could  be  given  ;  but  to 
show  the  sophistry  of  such  questions  in  a  few  words,  we  submit 
the  following.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  a  punishment 
divinely  inflicted  upon  the  Jews  for  their  sins.  No  Universalist 
will  deny  this.  They  will  have  it,  too,  that  Paul  taught  Jeru 
salem's  destruction  in  the  most  of  those  vivid  descriptions  of 
judgment  and  punishment  he  has  given  in  his  epistles,  but  none 
will  for  a  moment  suppose  that  Paul  desired,  or  would  pray  for, 
that  dreadful  calamity  to  come  upon  his  brethren,  the  Jews ; 
but  the  Jews  experienced  that  calamity,  notwithstanding.  Now 
if  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  false,  because  Christians 
cannot  pray  that  men  may  suffer  it,  the  doctrine  of  Jerusalem's 
destruction  was  false  when  Paul  preached  it,  for  the  same  rea- 


Sec.   83.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  199 

son,  which  is  contrary  to  matter  of  fact ;  therefore  all  such  rea 
soning  is  false.  We  are  told  that  men  suffer  in  this  world  for 
their  sins,  but  are  Universalists  in  the  habit  of  praying  that  men 
may  suffer  ?  Think  of  these  things,  reader,  when  these  ques 
tions  are  proposed. 

For  Universalist  views  of  prayer,  see  Sec.  C  VII. 

LXXXIIL  "  The  desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be  granted" 
Prov.  10 :  24. 

The  following  upon  this  is  found  in  the  Universalist  Compan 
ion,  for  1841  : 

"  Do  not  the  righteous  desire  the  salvation  of  all  mankind? 
Will  not  the  desire  of  the  righteous  be  granted  ?  Ans.  Prov. 
10  :  24.  *  The  desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be  granted.' ' 

The  whole  text  reads  thus  :  "  The  fear  of  the  wicked,  it  shall 
come  upon  him;  but  the  desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be 
granted  ;  "  and  it  is  dismembered  to  serve  the  purposes  of  Uni- 
versalism.  The  text  teaches  a  personal  evil  to  the  wicked,  and 
a  personal  good  to  the  righteous,  and  has  no  more  reference  to 
the  salvation  of  all  men,  than  it  has  to  the  damnation  of  all  men. 
Let  us  take  the  same  liberty  with  the  first  member  of  this  text 
that  these  men  do  with  the  second,  and  see  what  it  teaches. 

Do  not  many  wicked  men  fear  future  and  endless  punishment  ? 
Yes  ;  for  Universalists  themselves  assert  that  many  wicked  men 
believe  the  doctrine. 

Will  not  the  fear  of  the  wicked  come  upon  him?  Ans. 
Prov.  10  :  24.  "  The  fear  of  the  wicked,  it  shall  come  upon 
him."  Then  is  endless  punishment  true. 

Let  us  try  the  other  member,  and  see  what  we  can  prove. 

Do  not  the  righteous  desire  that  sin  and  misery  may  now 
cease  throughout  the  world  ?  Will  not  the  desire  of  the  right 
eous  be  granted  ?  Ans.  "  The  desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be 
granted."  This  world,  then,  is  a  paradise  ! 

Again,  did  not  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteous,  desire  the  salva 
tion  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  evince  that  desire  by  his  tears  ? 


200  UXIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Will  not  the  desire  of  the  righteous  be  granted  ?  Ans.  "  The 
desire  of  the  righteous  shall  be  granted,"  therefore,  Jerusalem 
was  never  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  just  as  sure  as  Universalist 
logic  is  sound. 

LXXXIY.  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  • 
and  man  became  a  living  soul"  Gen.  2:7. 

"Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was ;  and  the 
spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it"  Eccl.  12  :  7. 

The  following  dialogue,  manufactured  by  Mr.  A.  B.  Grosh, 
a  leading  man  in  the  denomination,  was  thought  so  valuable  by 
Mr.  Drew,  that  he  copied  it  into  his  Banner. 

"  Limitarian.  My  dear  sir,  your  doctrine  is  a  dangerous, 
a  very  dangerous  fallacy;  and,  if  you  take  not  heed,  will  result 
in  the  endless  damnation  of  your  immortal  soul. 

"  Universalist.  What  is  the  soul  ?  Is  it  that '  breath  of  life  ' 
which  God  breathed  into  the  nostrils  of  man,  when  he  '  became 
a  living  soul?  " 

"  L.     I  think  it  is. 

"  U.  You  agree,  then,  with  me,  that  whatever  is  immortal 
in  man  must  have  come  from  Deity  —  must,  in  fact,  be  a  part 
of  himself. 

"  L.     I  do.     For  he  created  all  that  is  created. 

"  U.  Very  well.  Now  do  you  really  believe  that  God  will 
punish  'his  breath' — a  part  of  himself  —  to  all  eternity? 
[The  Limitarian  was  silent,  evidently  unwilling  to  answer.] 
Now,  my  dear  friend,  the  Bible  teaches  me  that  he  will  not.  It 
says  (Eccl.  12  :  7),  'the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave 
it,'  when  the  body  returns  to  dust. 

"  L.     Yes,  but  that  only  refers  to  the  souls  of  good  men. 

"  U.  And  pray,  from  whom  do  the  wicked  receive  their 
souls  ?  Is  it  from  Satan,  that  they  must  return  to  him  ?  Or 
does  Satan  get  that  portion  of  Deity  so  completely  under  his  con 
trol  that  he  can  hold  it  and  punish  it  to  all  eternity,  in  despite 
of  that  Almighty  Being,  of  whom  and  whose  it  is  ? 


Sec.   84.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  201 

"  L.     Dangerous  sophistry !     Blasphemy!     [Exit." 
This  is  a  choice  specimen  of  TJniversalist  divinity.     The  obvi 
ous  design  is  to  teach  an  old,  heathen  notion,  that  the  soul  of 
man  is  a  part  of  God;  and  then,  that  endless  punishment  is 
false,  because  God  will  not  punish  himself  to  all  eternity  !     That 
the  soul  is  not  a  part  of  God.  but  was  created,  is  evident  from 
the  scriptures,  which  declare  that  God  made  man  in  his  own 
image.     This,  we  conceive,  was  not  spoken  of  the   creation  of 
the  body,  for  that  is  no  more  the  image  of  an  intelligent,  immor 
tal,  holy  Spirit,  than  any  other  material  substance.      It  was  the 
soul  that  God  made  in  his  own  image.       Were  it  necessary, 
argument  and  scripture  might  be  produced,  to  prove  that  God 
created  the  whole  man,  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body  ;  but  other 
considerations  will  show,  in  a  few  words,  the  absurdity  of  the 
idea  that  the  human  soul  is  a  part  of  God  himself.     Admit  for  a 
moment  this  idea,  and  what  follows  ?     It  follows  that  a  par  t  of 
the  Almighty  is  scattered  about  in  millions  of  parts  in  the  form 
of  human  souls,  and  that  these  souls  have  been  suffering  more 
or  less  ever  since  the  creation  ;  for  none  doubt,  that  we  know  of, 
but  what  the  souls  of  men  suffer,  as  well  as  their  bodies.     "  Will 
God  punish  a  part  of  himself  to  all  eternity  ?  "  is  the  wise  ques 
tion  proposed  in  the  dialogue.       In   answer,  we  say,    that  it 
requires  no  greater  stretch  of  our  credulity  to  believe  that  God 
will  punish  himself  eternally,  than  it  does  to  believe  he  can  pun 
ish  himself  six  thousand  years,   by  inhabiting  human  bodies. 
Again,  the  notion  is  quite  common  with  Universalists,  that  we 
are  dependent  upon  the  resurrection  for  a  future  existence  ;  but 
if  the  soul  is  a  part  of  God,  that  must  be  false,  unless  a  part  of 
God  may  be  annihilated  !     Again,  Universalists  very  generally 
deny  the  resurrection  of  the  body ;    hence,  all  the  future  salva 
tion  so  much  talked  of,  pertains  to  the  soul.     But  we  ask,  is  it 
not  both  absurd  and  blasphemous  to  talk  of  saving  a  part  of 
God  ?     We  read  of  the  death  of  the  soul,  and  the  Scriptures 
count  man  a  sinner.     Is  the  body  the  sinner,  or  has  the  soul 
something  to  do  with  it ;  and  if  the  soul  has  something  to  do  in 
11 


202  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  matter,  we  ask,  does  a  part  of  a  holy  God  sin  ?  Some  have 
told  us  that  all  sin  originates  in  the  flesh,  and  that  the  soul  is 
pure  of  itself,  but  is,  by  its  connection  with  the  body,  forced  into 
the  service  of  the  body,  and  thus  sin  is  accounted  for.  But, 
we  ask,  is  a  part  of  the  Almighty  so  pent  up  in  the  human  body 
that  it  is  obliged  to  do  its  bidding ;  or  in  other  words,  does  the 
creature  govern  the  Creator  ?  No  wonder  that  Mr.  Grosh  should 
represent  the  Limitarian  as  exclaiming  "  Blasphemy  !  " 

But  no  soul  will  be  punished  to  all  eternity,  because  "  the 
spirit  shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it."  Eccl.  12  :  7.  Let  it 
be  observed  that  here  nothing  is  said  about  the  misery  or  happi 
ness  of  the  spirit.  That  all  spirits  will  return  to  God,  Chris 
tians  believe,  and  they  believe,  too,  that  he  will  dispose  of  them 
according  to  their  deserts,  and  that  to  the  ungodly,  "it  is  a  fear 
ful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God."  Heb.  10  :  31. 

Thoughts  might  be  given  upon  the  attributes  of  God,  to  show 
the  anti-christian  character  of  the  sentiment  inculcated  by  the 
dialogue ;  but  these  brief  hints  are  sufficient  to  show  the  reader 
that  it  wars  with  scripture,  the  nature  of  God,  and  common 
sense.  This  argument  upon  the  soul,  to  prove  their  doctrine, 
was  a  very  common  one  among  Universalists  a  few  years  since, 
but  we  had  supposed,  like  much  of  their  former  truth,  it  was 
now  obsolete,  and  were  surprised  at  meeting  this  new  edition  of 
it  in  the  Banner.  Anything  and  any  way,  only  prejudice  the 
people  against  evangelical  sentiments,  and  induce  them  to 
believe,  if  possible,  in  Universalisin. 

One  thought  more.  Stress  is  laid  upon  the  phrase  "  breathed 
into"  &c.,  as  though  the  soul  was  a  part  of  God  on  this  account. 
The  prophet,  (Isa.  30 :  33,)  speaking  of  Tophet,  says,  "  the 
breath  of  the  Lord,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone,  doth  kindle  it." 
Did  a  part  of  Deity  kindle  the  fire  in  Tophet  ?  All  will  see 
that  this  is  simply  an  expression  of  God's  agency  in  producing 
it.  So  with  Gen.  2  :  7. 


Sec.   85.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  203 

LXXXV.  "My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my 
pleasure"  Isa,  46  :  10,  11. 

Is  it  the  design  of  the  Spirit  in  this  text  to  teach  that  the 
pleasure  of  the  Lord  is  done  in  all  things  ?  By  no  means  ;  for 
respect  is  had  to  a  particular  subject,  and  we  are  not  to  draw  a 
general  conclusion  from  a  particular  case,  especially  when  the 
Bible  declares  (Ezek.  33  :  11),  that  some  things  take  place  con 
trary  to  the  pleasure  of  God.  What  is  God's  pleasure  in  the 
case  before  us  ?  The  context  explains  as  follows  :  "  Calling  a 
ravenous  bird  from  the  east,  the  man  that  executeth  my  counsel 
from  a  far  country ;  yea,  I  have  spoken  it,  I  will  also  bring  it 
to  pass;  I  have  purposed  it,  I  will  also  do  it,"  v.  11.  This 
counsel  or  pleasure  was  to  be  executed  by  a  man.  If  we  turn 
to  chap.  44  :  28,  we  shall  see  who  this  man  is,  and  what  the 
pleasure  of  the  Lord  is.  It  reads  thus  :  "  That  saith  of  Cyrus, 
He  is  my  shepherd,  and  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure  ;  even 
saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  be  built ;  and  to  the  temple, 
Thy  foundation  shall  be  laid."  Here  we  see  that  God  says  of 
Cyrus,  "  he  shall  perform  all  my  pleasure ,"  i.  e.,  all  my  pleas 
ure  concerning  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple. 

The  position  taken  by  Universalists  is,  that  God's  will  is 
always  done  ;  and  their  leading  writers  deny  the  freedom  of  the 
human  will.  Mr.  Ballou  says,  "  It  is  evident  that  will  or  choice 
has  no  possible  liberty."  T.  on  Atonement,  p.  42.  Mr.  Rog 
ers,  following  in  his  wake,  says,  "the  notion  of  free-will  is  a 
chimera."  Pro  $  Con,  p.  290.  Mr.  Ballou,  in  showing  that 
sin  is  intended  for  good,  says,  "  It  is  not  casting  any  disagreea 
ble  reflections  on  the  Almighty  to  say  he  determined  all  things 
for  good  ;  and  to  believe  that  he  superintends  all  the  affairs  of 
the  universe,  not  excepting  sin,  is  a  million  times  more  to  the 
honor  of  God,  than  to  believe  he  cannot,  or  he  does  not  when  he 
can."  T.  on  Atonement,  p.  40.  Again  he  says,  "  Natural 
evil  is  the  necessary  result  of  the  physical  organization  and  con 
stitution  of  animal  nature,"  p.  31  ;  and  then  he  informs  us  that 
"  moral  evil  or  sin  owes  its  origin  to  natural  evil,"  p.  32  ;  and  also 


204  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I 

that  "  man  is  independent  of  bis  volitions,  and  moves  by  neces 
sity,"  p.  64.  Mr.  Ballou  is  consistent  with  his  theory  when  he 
says,  "  The  Almighty  had  no  occasion  to  dislike  Adam  after  the 
transgression,  any  more  than  be  had  even  before  he  made  him," 
p.  104;  and  according  to  his  deductions,  "  the  Divine  favor' 
can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost."  Exp.,  v.  1,  p.  28.  Says  Mr. 
"Whittemore,  "  Man  cannot  do  what  his  Maker  wills  he  shall 
not  do,  and  he  cannot  leave  undone  what  his  Maker  wills  he 
shall  do."  Trumpet,  No.  968.  Other  leading  writers  in  the 
order  might  be  added  to  this  list,  whose  views  are  in  harmony 
with  these.  (Sec.  CIV.)  Indeed,  Universalism  can  be  sus 
tained  in  no  other  way  than  by  resolving  all  the  wickedness  of 
the  world  into  the  sovereignty  of  God,  and  annihilating  the 
moral  agency  of  man  ;  for  if  the  above  views  are  correct,  a 
steam  engine  is  as  much  a  moral  agent  as  a  human  being.  Sin, 
by  this  view,  is  not  merely  reduced  to  a  trifle,  but  there  can  be 
no  such  thing  unless  we  come  to  the  blasphemous  conclusion 
that  a  holy  God  sins.  These  sentiments  in  fact  make  him  the 
author  of  all  sin  and  misery  in  the  universe ;  and  when  viewed 
in  connection  with  Bible  declarations,  charge  him  with  the  gross 
est  acts  of  hypocrisy  towards  his  creatures,  to  say  nothing  of 
cruelty  in  punishing  them  for  what  they  cannot  avoid.  As  a 
specimen  of  its  application  in  proof  of  Universalism,  the  follow 
ing  syllogism  is  presented,  taken  from  the  Universalist  Compan 
ion,  for  1842  : 

"  1.  It  is  God's  will  for  all  men  to  be  converted  and  saved. 
"  2.  God's  will  will  be  done. 

"3.  Therefore  all  men  will  be  converted  and  saved." 
We  find  a  set  of  syllogisms  ready  made  at  our  hand,  in  the 
5th  No.  of  the   "  Sword  of  Truth,"  in  answer  to  the  above, 
by  which  its  soundness  may  be  readily  tested.     They  are  the 
following  : 

"  1.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  all  men  should  keep  sober. 

"  2.  God's  will  will  be  done. 

41  3.  Therefore,  all  men  do  keep  sober,  and  the  temperance 


SeC.   85.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


205 


reformation  is  finished,  just  as  sure  as  Universalist's  arguments 
are  sound. 

"  1.  It  is  God's  will  that  all  men  should  embrace  the  truth. 

"  2. '  God's  will  will  be  done. 

"  3.  All  men  do  not  embrace  Universalism  ;  therefore  Uni- 
versalism  is  not  the  truth. 

"  This  cannot  be  retorted  upon  us,  because  we  hold  that  many 
things  transpire  contrary  to  the  will  of  God." 

We  will  change  the  form  of  this  fruitful  syllogism,  for  it  will 
answer  almost  every  purpose. 

"  1.  If  the  will  of  God  is  done  in  every  act,  and  in  every 
event,  as  the  syllogism  asserts,  it  follows  that  everything  that  is 
done,  and  everything  that  takes  place,  is  in  accordance  with  the 

divine  will. 

"2.  Murder,  robbery,  drunkenness  and  whoredom,  all  take 

place. 

"  3.  Therefore  murder,  robbery,  drunkenness  and  whoredom, 
are  all  in  accordance  with  the  blessed  will  of  God. 

"  Once  more, 

"  1.  Univcrsalists  ought  not  to  be  opposed  to  the  fulfillment  of 
the  will  of  God. 

"2.  If  the  above  Universalist  syllogism  be  sound,  murder, 
robbery,  drunkenness  and  whoredom  transpire  in  fulfillment  of 
the  divine  will. 

"3.  Therefore  Universalists  ought  not  to  be  opposed  to  mur 
der,  robbery,  drunkenness  and  whoredom." 

Again, 

"  If  God's  will  can  but  be  done  in  everything,  it  follows  that 
what  does  not  take  place,  is  not  according  to  the  will  of  God. 

"  All  men  do  not  pray,  therefore  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  that 
all  men  should  pray. 

"  All  men  do  not  believe  the  truth,  therefore  it  is  not  the  will 
of  God  that  all  men  should  believe  the  truth. 

' '  All  men  do  not  keep  his  commandments,  therefore  it  is  not 
the  will  of  God  that  all  men  should  keep  his  commandments." 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

The  Saviour  said,  (Matt.  7  :  21,)  "  Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 
Here  we  have  proof  that  the  will  of  God  is  not  done  in  all  cases. 
A  host  of  such  texts  might  be  adduced,  were  it  needful.  What 
is  sin,  but  a  transgression  of  the  Divine  law  ?  and  what  is  that 
law  but  a  transcript  of  the  Divine  mind,  or  an  expression  of  His 
will  ? 

Thus  these  men  array  the  God  of  truth  against  himself. 

LXXXVI.  "  He  retaineth  not  his  anger  forever,  because  he 
delighteth  in  mercy."  Micah  7  :  18. 

Says  the  author  of  the  Guide,  p.  42,  "  A  precious  assurance  ! 
altogether  at  variance  with  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery." 
This  forms  one  of  those  arguments  by  which  the  faith  of  a  cer 
tain  class  of  minds  receives  its  enlargement.  The  prophet 
predicts  the  desolation  of  Israel,  on  account  of  the  wickedness 
of  the  people.  He  is  interceding  in  their  behalf,  after  which 
God  is  introduced  promising  their  future  restoration  to  national 
privileges  in  this  world.  Then  a  chorus  of  Jews  is  introduced, 
singing  a  hymn  of  thanksgiving,  beginning  with  the  verse  of 
which  this  text  is  a  part.  The  reader  will  see  by  examination, 
that  this  was  not  spoken  of  all  men,  nor  of  the  future  state,  but 
of  the  Jewish  people  in  this  world,  "  the  remnant  of  his  heri 
tage"  But  no  matter  for  this,  it  can  be  woven  in  as  occasion 
may  require,  with  other  texts,  to  deceive  the  people.  We 
might,  with  at  least  equal  propriety,  bring  Isa.  27  : 11,  to  dis 
prove  Universalism.  It  reads  thus  :  "  He  that  made  them  will 
not  have  mercy  on  them,  and  he  that  formed  them  will  show 
them  no  favor."  Here  it  is  asserted  of  a  certain  class,  that  God 
will  not  have  mercy  on  them,  and  that  he  will  show  them  no 
favor.  How  will  this  comport  with  the  idea  of  God's  endless 
mercy  and  favor  to  all  men?  Reader,  is  not  our  argument  as 
sound  as  Mr.  Whittemore's  ? 


SeC.   87.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


207 


LXXXVII.  "  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their 
eyes ;  and  there  shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor 
crying  ;  neither  shall  there  l)e  any  more  pain  ;  for  the  former 
things  are  passed  away."  Rev.  21:4.  See  also  verses  7 
and  8. 

Paraphrased  in  accordance  with  Universalist  views,  the  pas 
sage  reads  thus :   "  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  the  eyes 
of  the  whole  human  family ;    and  to  all  there  shall  be  no  more 
death,  neither  shall  they  suffer  any  more  sorrow,  or  crying,  or 
pain ;  for  the  former  things  have  passed  away  from  the  whole  of 
Adam's  posterity."     But  the  reader  will  see  at  a  glance  that 
this  happy  state  of  things  is  not  predicated  of  the  whole  human 
race,  but  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  "  NEW  JERUSALEM," 
v.  2.     "  There  shall  he  no  more  death"      This,  with  Univer 
salist  divines,  is  a  kind  of  make-weight  text  to  be  thrown  in  at 
any  time,  like  Lam.  3  :  31,  and  1  Cor.  15 :  22.     Mr.  Whitte- 
more  has  put  it  in  capitals,  and  says,   "  Although  we  read  in  the 
scriptures  of  the  second  death,  yet,  if  we  read  of  thirty  deaths, 
it  would  be  no  argument  against  Universalism,  since  the  time  is 
to  come  when  "  THERE  SHALL  BE  NO  MORE  DEATH."      Guide,  p. 
53.     The  substance  of  this,  when  connected  with  the  facts  in 
the  case,  is  this :    a  certain  class  shall  suffer  no  more   death  ; 
therefore,  none  of  the  human  family  shall  suffer  anymore  death  ! 
Not  very  logical.     But  when  is  the  happy  state  of  things  con 
tained  in  the  text  to  take  place  ?     Not  in  this  world,  as  "  none 
are  saved  from  all  moral  evil  here."      U.  III.  $  Def.,  p.  261. 
"  No  man  on  earth  is  entirely  free  from  sin."     Page,  on  Matt. 
7  :  23.     It  is  in  the  future,  then,  that  the  blessings  named  in  the 
text  are  to  be  enjoyed.     We  too  admit  the  future-state  reference 
of  the  passage,  and  we  know,  too,  that  if  there  is  any  meaning 
in  language,  it  is  descriptive  of  the  bliss  of  the  saints  as  distin 
guished  from  the  state  of  the  wicked  (v.  8) .     Inspiration,  after 
describing  the  exemptions  and  bliss  of  saints,  says,   "  He  that 
overcometh  shall  inherit  all  things  (all  the  things  just  described)  ; 
and  I  will  be  his  God,  and  he  shall  be  my  son.     But  the  fear- 


208  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ful,  and  unbelieving,  and  the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  shall 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim 
stone;  which  is  the  second  death,"  v.  7  and  8.  It  will  be  seen 
by  examination,  that  there  is  not  a  single  mark  of  future  refer 
ence  in  v.  4,  that  is  not  found  in  v.  8.  They  both  refer  to  the 
future  condition  of  man,  presenting  two  classes  and  conditions, 
according  to  character.  One  class  are  to  experience  "  720  more 
death  ;  "  but  the  other  are  to  suffer  "  the  second  death."  One 
is  freed  from  tears,  sorrow,  and  pain  ;  the  other  ' '  shall  have 
their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone." 
Never  was  there  a  more  gross  perversion  than  using  v.  4,  or  any 
part  of  it,  to  prove  the  salvation  of  all  men.  The  fact  that  the 
system  demands  such  work  of  its  advocates  to  sustain  it,  should 
be  considered  proof  demonstrative  that  it  is  not  of  God.  Reader, 
beware  of  the  "  second  death." 

LXXXYIII.  "For  it  is  impossible  for  those  wlio  were  once 
enlightened,  and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,"  &c.  Ileb. 
G :  4-G. 

The  author  of  the  Guide,  p.  107,  labors  to  show  that  this  pas 
sage  cannot  mean  what  it  seems  to  mean,  because  "  the  scrip 
tures  teach  that  all  things  are  possible  with  God,"  and  "  that 
all  will  admit  that  God  can  do  anything  which  docs  not  involve 
in  itself  a  necessary  contradiction  or  impossibility."  Very  true, 
and  the  case  named  in  the  passage  is  just  of  that  character. 
When  the  Bible  declares  that  all  things  arc  possible  with  God, 
it  is  to  be  understood  in  a  restricted  sense  ;  for  it  is  evident  from 
the  nature  of  God,  and  also  from  the  Bible  itself,  that  it  is  "  im 
possible  for  God  to  lie,"  and  that  "  he  cannot  deny  himself." 
.Repentance  is  a  work  God  has  enjoined  upon  the  sinner,  without 
which  he  cannot  be  saved.  But  while  none  can  repent  without  di 
vine  aid,  it  is  also  true  that  God  as  a  moral  governor,  cannot  coerce 
men  into  repentance.  It  must  be  voluntary  on  the  part  of  man, 
or  it  involves  a  contradiction,  arraying  the  Deity  against  himself 


SeC.  88.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    TIIE    BIBLE.  209 

by  attributing  to  him  a  work  which  he  has  enjoined  upon  tho 
sinner,  and  which  none  but  a  sinner  can  perform.  The  apostlo 
speaks  (2  Tim.  2  :  25)  of  God's  giving  repentance,  by  which  wo 
understand  that  he  gives  the  means  and  opportunity,  and  not 
that  he  repents  for  the  sinner.  Man  is  not  passive  in  this  work, 
but  an  active  agent,  as  the  Bible  and  experience  clearly  show. 
But  says  the  Guide,  "  If  a  man  becomes  incapable  of  repent 
ance,  he  will  be  no  longer  a  moral  agent ;  nor  will  he  be  under 
obligation  to  do  that  which  he  cannot."  To  this  quibble  we 
reply,  that  the  responsibility  of  a  man  before  God  who  has  lost 
his  moral  agency,  or  power  of  right  action,  depends  upon  how 
he  lost  it.  If  a  man  in  the  providence  of  God  becomes  insane, 
independent  of  his  voluntary  action,  justice  declares  him  not 
responsible.  But  if  a  man  by  his  voluntary  acts,  hardens  his 
heart,  sears  his  conscience,  grieves  the  Spirit,  and  hurls  his  own 
reason  from  its  throne,  justice  requires  that  such  a  man  be  held 
responsible  for  acts  committed  while  in  such  a  state.  Is  the 
man  who  voluntarily  deprives  himself  of  the  means  to  sustain  his 
own  family,  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  poverty  and  wretched 
ness  which  may  follow  such  an  act  ?  A  man  becomes  beastly 
drunk,  reason  is  dethroned,  he  burns  his  neighbor's  buildings, 
and  murders  his  own  wife.  Does  not  God  hold  him  responsible 
for  these  acts  ?  Civil  law,  even,  holds  him  responsible,  for  the 
good  reason  that  he  had  no  right  to  abuse  his  powers  by  drink 
ing  to  intoxication.  God  has  given  man  powers  as  a  moral 
being,  but  if  he  abuses  them  by  acts  of  sin  so  as  to  destroy  his 
reason,  is  it  not  just  to  conclude  that  God  will  hold  him  respon 
sible  in  the  day  of  judgment,  not  only  for  the  evil  he  commits  in 
such  a  state,  but  also  for  the  good  he  fails  to  do,  which  he  might 
otherwise  have  accomplished  ?  Most  certainly  it  is.  Again  ;  it 
is  said  by  the  Guide,  that  "  Paul  only  meant  that  it  was  impos 
sible  for  him,  by  his  preaching  to  apostate  Christians,  to  renew 
them  again  to  repentance."  Well,  what  is  gained  by  this,  sup 
posing  that  it  be  admitted  ?  Does  it  prove  that  their  renewal  is 
possible  from  some  other  source  ?  Inspiration  declares  of  such 
11* 


210  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

apostates  that  it  is  IMPOSSIBLE,  that  is,  they  are  past  recov 
ery  ;  it  is  impossible  for  any  instrumentality  or  agency  "  to 
renew  them  again  unto  repentance  ;  seeing  they  crucify  to  them 
selves  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame." 
But  Universalism  contradicts  the  Bible,  and  says  it  is  possible. 
Which  shall  we  credit,  Universalism  or  the  Bible.  See  Sec.  IV. 

LXXXIX.  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  "  Acts  16  :  30. 

Why  does  the  jailer  tremble  and  fall  before  Paul  and  Silas, 
proposing  this  important  question  ?  Did  he  fear  the  Roman 
law  ?  This  could  not  be,  for  that  had  not  been  violated  ;  and 
this  he  knew,  for  Paul  had  just  said  to  him,  "  Do  thyself  no 
harm,  for  we  are  all  here."  Would  he  have  consulted  two  poor 
missionaries  of  the  cross,  if  the  Roman  law  was  all  he  feared  ? 
Then  see  the  answer  of  Paul.  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Was  faith  in  Christ  the  way 
of  salvation  from  the  penalty  of  Roman  laws?  Faith  in 
Christ  was  quite  a  stfre  way  to  incur  that  penalty.  Paul  had 
been  whipped  in  the  public  streets  of  Philippi  only  the'  day 
before,  and  the  jailer  knew  it ;  and  now  Paul  directs  him  to 
believe  on  Christ  in  order  to  escape  the  Roman  law  !  This  is 
too  absurd,  even  for  Mr.  Whittemore  ;  hence,  in  his  Guide,  p. 
175,  he  admits  that  the  jailer  in  effect  inquired,  "  What  must  I 
do  to  become  a  Christian?  "  But,  lest  it  should  be  thought 
that  he  had  any  respect  to  the  future  world,  a  dust  is  raised 
about  the  word  saved,  and  ten  texts  of  scripture  are  produced  to 
prove  most  conclusively  what  no  one  ever  denied,  viz :  that 
Christians  are  said  to  be  saved  in  this  world,  a  fact  with  which 
all  Christians  are  perfectly  familiar ;  and  what  does  it  prove  ? 
Does  it  prove  that  the  jailer  had  no  thoughts  of  eternity,  in  the 
deep  convictions  he  evinced  ?  Much  is  said  about  universal  sal 
vation,  which  of  course  is  to  be  experienced  in  the  future  state. 
Suppose  we  were  to  deny  that  there  is  any  salvation  in  the  future 
world,  and  then,  to  prove  it,  should  make  a  great  parade  of  text 
to  show  that  men  are  said  to  be  saved  in  this  world,  would  it  be 


SeC.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  211 

honest?  Yet  this  could  be  done  with  equal  fairness.  (Sec. 
LI.)  The  jailer  was  without  doubt  a  believer  in  future  retribu 
tions,  for  this  doctrine  was  common  not  only  among  Jews,  but 
also  among  Gentiles  (Sec.  CXXXII)  ;  and  it  is  highly  proba 
ble  that  he  heard  the  praying  and  singing  of  the  apostles,  and 
knew  something  of  their  teachings ;  these,  together  with  the 
earthquake  and  the  Christian  demeanor  of  the  prisoners,  were 
set  home  to  his  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  now  sees  himself 
a  sinner,  and  has  such  a  discovery  of  his  awful  exposure,  that  he 
trembles,  rushes  in  and  falls  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,  and 
cries,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  "  Faithful  Christian 
ministers,  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  have  witnessed  the  trembling 
power  which  sometimes  seizes  the  guilty  before  God,  in  view  of 
their  lost  condition.  The  jailer  bears  every  mark  of  being 
strongly  excited  by  fear,  which  completely  refutes  the  idea  so 
much  dwelt  upon  by  Universalists,  viz  :  that  fear  has  nothing  to 
do  with  making  men  Christians  ;  for  observe,  Mr.  Whittemore 
admits  that  he  desired  at  this  crisis  to  become  a  Christian,  and 
the  history  shows  that  he  did  become  one. 

XC.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive"  1  Cor.  15  :  22. 

In  this  section  we  purpose  to  examine  those  texts  in  1  Cor. 
15,  which  are  involved  in  the  controversy  with  Universalists, 
passing  over  those  which  have  no  particular  bearing  upon  the 
subject.  As  may  be  seen  most  clearly,  the  apostle  is  not  prov 
ing  how  all  men  will  be  made  holy  and  happy,  but  his  subject  is 
the  resurrection  of  the  body.  To  prove  and  illustrate  this,  the 
chapter  was  written.  It  will  be  seen,  too,  that  this  was  addressed 
to  Christians,  to  "  beloved  brethren,"  and  after  proving  the  res 
urrection,  he  very  beautifully  illustrates  and  explains  what  they, 
as  Christians,  might  expect  pertaining  to  their  bodies  in  that 
state.  This  was  called  forth  by  the  fact  that  some  false  teachers 
at  Corinth  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
In  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  he  proves  the  resurrection  of 


212  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Christ,  and  then  shows  the  fatal  consequences  to  the  whole  Chris 
tian  system,  if  it  be  a  fact  that  Christ  has  not  risen,  as  follows  : 
"  Now,  if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead,  how 
say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ? 
But  if  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  then  is  Christ  not 
risen ;  and  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain, 
and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  Yea,  and  we  are  found  false  wit 
nesses  of  God ;  because  we  have  testified  of  God  that  he  raised 
up  Christ :  whom  he  raised  not  up,  if  so  be  that  the  dead  rise 
not.  For  if  the  dead  rise  not,  then  is  Christ  not  raised.  And 
if  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain ;  ye  are  yet  in  your 
sins.  Then  they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  per 
ished.  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  we  are  of 
all  men  most  miserable."  Ver.  12-19. 

Mr.  Balfour  (Essays,  p.  193)  denies  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  and  contends  that  none  who  die  have  any  conscious  exist 
ence  until  the  resurrection,  which  is  yet  future,  and  brings  in 
proof  of  this,  v.  18.  That  the  apostle  never  designed  to  teach 
materialism  in  this  passage,  the  reader  will  see  by  consulting  the 
scriptures  referred  to  a  few  pages  forward  in  this  section.  He  is 
showing,  from  ver.  12  to  ver  19,  the  fatal  consequences  to  the 
whole  Christian  system  of  denying  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
Some,  it  seems,  admitted  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  while  they 
denied  that  others  would  be  raised.  But  the  apostle  shows  them 
that  consistency  required  that  they  discard  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  that  they  virtually  did  so  by  the  doctrines  they  put 
forth.  He  then  shows  them,  that  occupying  this  ground  they 
made  Christ  a  deceiver,  and  the  apostles  false  witnesses,  and  if 
the  gospel  could  be  thus  stripped  of  the  evidence  it  derives  from 
the  resurrection  of  its  author,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
be  set  aside,  then  every  other  doctrine  pertaining  to  it  must  fall. 
Then  the  world  must  be  left  without  Christianity,  without  any 
light  respecting  the  future,  and  all  must  be  as  dark  and  dreary 
as  Paganism.  They  had  experienced  present  salvation  from  the 
guilt  of  sin,  through  the  atonement ;  and  some  of  their  brethren 


SeC.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  213 

had  suffered  all  manner  of  indignities,  and  had  died  most  cruel 
deaths  in  hope  of  a  future  life  of  bliss.  But  the  apostle  shows 
that  if  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  false,  then  all  other  Chris 
tian  doctrines  were  of  no  avail ;  that  their  preaching  was  vain, 
and  they  "  which  had  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  had  perished,"  be 
cause  they  trusted  in  Christ  to  save  them  from  their  sins.  But 
if  he  had  not  risen  from  the  dead,  he  was  himself  a  sinner, 
having  been  guilty  of  deception  and  falsehood,  and  had  himself 
gone  to  perdition,  and  could  never  save  them  from  the  same  fate. 
Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  present  justification  was  destroyed, 
for  "your  faith  is  vain,  and  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins."  Then, 
upon  the  principle  that  the  Christian  system  is  false,  he  shows 
the  folly  of  those  who,  unlike  some  in  our  day  who  contend  that 
conduct  here  takes  no  hold  on  the  future  state,  were  laboring 
and  enduring  with  respect  to  a  better  world,  he  says  :  "  If  in 
this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  we  are  of  all  men  most 
miserable."  We  see  by  these  brief  thoughts  that  the  idea 
taught,  is  not  that  there  is  no  conscious  existence  unless  the 
bodies  of  men  are  raised,  but  that  a  denial  of  the  resurrection 
is  equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  the  whole  gospel  plan,  and  thus 
the  world  would  be  left  without  any  hope  or  just  conceptions  re 
specting  the  future.  The  apostle  continues :  "  But  now  is 
Christ  risen  from  the  dead  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept."  Ver.  20. 

"  Of  them  that  slept'''  Are  we  to  understand  by  this  all 
mankind,  or  a  particular  class  of  persons  ?  The  latter,  as  is  quite 
evident.  This  sense  is  fixed  by  ver.  18  :  "  Then  they  which 
have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,"  &c.,  that  is,  those  who  had  died 
in  his  cause,  perhaps  as  martyrs.  The  same  class  Paul  names 
in  1  Thess.  4  :  16  :  "  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first ;  "  and 
the  same  that  John  refers  to,  Rev.  14  : 13  :  "  Blessed  are  the 
dead  which  die  in  the  Lord."  The  clause,  "  Christ  the  first 
fruits,"  will  be  considered  in  connection  with  ver.  23  :  "  For 
since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

be  made  alive.     But  every  man  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the 
first  fruits;  afterwards,  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming." 
Yer.  21-23.     What  death  did  Adam  die,  or  what  death  was  in 
troduced  by  him  ?     "  His  death  was  simply  moral ;  he  died  to 
innocence  ;  there  was  nothing  affected  but  his  mind  and  heart ;  no 
change  took  place  in  his  moral  or  physical  constitution."      U. 
Ill  and  Def.,  p.  76.     But  in  what  sense  do  all  die  in  Adam  ? 
Some  years  since  while  delivering  a  course  of  lectures  in  one  of 
the  villages  of  Maine,  we  gave  a  public  call  upon  Univcrsalists 
for  information  respecting  their  views  upon  ver.  22.     We  knew 
that  this  text  was  often  used  to  prove  their  doctrine,  but  could 
find  nothing  explicit,  in  the  many  books  from  their  authors  we 
had  in  possession,  to  show  how  all  die  in  Adam.     The  next 
week  an  anonymous  letter  was  received,  supposed  to  be  dictated 
by  the  Universalist  minister  of  the   place,  in  which  we  were  in 
formed  that  all  men  do  not  die  in  Adam,  as  we  bathe  in  water 
or  sail  in  a  boat,  but  that  Adam  died  to  innocence,  or  died  a 
moral  death  by  sinning,  and  that  all  men  by  sin   die  as  Adam 
did,  and  that  by  Christ  all  are  to  be  made  alive  morally.     Ac 
cording  to  this  view,  to  die  in  Adam  means  simply  to  die  as 
Adam  did.     Moral  death,  we  suppose,  is  indicated  Rom.  8:6: 
"For  to  be    carnally  minded  is  death."     Also,   Eph.  2:1: 
' '  Dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. ' '    Upon  the  hypothesis  that  a  moral 
death  and  resurrection  are  intended, 'let  us  paraphrase  the  three 
texts  and  see  what  character  is  given  the  Saviour  and  his  holy 
saints.     "  For  since  by  Adam  came  moral  death,  by  Christ  came 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  morally  dead.     For  as  in  Adam  all 
die  a  moral  death,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  morally 
alive.     But  every  man  in  his  own  order  in  this  resurrection  from 
moral  death  to  moral  life  :  Christ  the  first  fruits  of  the  morally 
dead ;  afterwards,  they  of  the  morally  dead  that  are  Christ's  at 
his  coming  !  "     And  is  it  so  ?     Was  Christ  the  immaculate,  who 
"  did  no  sin,"  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ?  "     Was  he  in  his 
resurrection  "  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept  "  in  moral  pollu 
tion  ?     And  then  are  those  who  in  the  scriptures  are  denominat- 


Sec.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  215 

ed  Christ's,  morally  dead?      No  ;  for   "  they  that  are  Christ's 
have  crucified  the  flesh,  with  the  affections  and  lusts."     Gal. 
5  :  24.     But  to  carry  out  the  Universalist  view  of  a  moral  death 
and  resurrection,  the  passage  is  made  to  teach  that  which  is  both 
blasphemous  and  absurd,   namely  :  That  Christ  was  the  first 
fruits  of  those  who  are  raised  from  moral  death   and  pollution, 
and  afterwards  those  that  are  Christ's  at  his  coming  shall  be 
raised  from  the  same  deplorable  condition  !     Says  Mr.  Skinner  : 
"  Perhaps  there  is  no  better  way  of  detecting  the  fallacy  of  a 
doctrine,  than  by  looking  at  the  difficulties  into  which  it  leads." 
U.  III.  and  Def.,  p.  171.     We  beg  the  reader  to  look  at  the 
difficulties  into  which  Universalist  interpretations  lead  in  the 
subject  under  consideration.     Adopt  the  truth,  that  the   death 
and  resurrection  of  the  body  constitute  the  apostle's  theme,  and 
all  becomes  plain  and  luminous  in  his  reasoning.     The  reader 
need  not  be  informed  that  ver.  22  is  a  text  ever  at  hand  to  prove 
Universalisrn.     This  has,  by  the  advocates  of  this  dogma,  been 
illustrated  by  scales.      In  the  first  scale  is  placed,   "  As  in 
Adam  all  die,"  then   "  even  so  "  under  an  even  beam,  and  in 
the  second  scale,  "  In  Christ  shall  all  le  made  alive.''1     The 
object  of  this  is,  to  show  that  just  as  much  was  gained  by  Christ 
as  was  lost  by  Adam  ;  and  this  is  doubtless  true  in  the  sense  of 
the  text.     Now,  if  we  can  ascertain  what  is  in  the  first  scale,  we 
can  soon  learn  what  is  in  the  second.     To  get  at  this,  let  us  in 
quire  about  what  was  Paul  writing.     Is  he  showing  how  all  men 
became  sinners  in  consequence  of  Adam's  transgression,   and 
how  all  men  will  be  made  holy  and  happy  by  Christ's  obedience  ? 
Nothing  of  the  kind.     He  is  not  illustrating  the  plan  of  salva 
tion  at  all.     Is  Paul  calling  the  attention  of  his  brethren  to  the 
subject  of  spiritual  death  and  spiritual  life?     By  no  means. 
This  chapter,  as  all  must  see,  was  written  to  prove  and  illustrate 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  this  very  naturally  led  him  to 
show  how  men  became  subject  to  temporal  death,  which  he  does 
thus:  "For  since  by  man,  i.  e.,  Adam,  came  death,  i.  e.  the 
death  of  the  body,  by  man,  i.  e.,  Christ,  came  also  the  resur- 


216  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

rcction  of  the  dead."  Ver.  21.  "  For  as  in  Adam  (the  man 
alluded  to,)  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  i. 
e.,  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead.  Yer.  22.  "  But  every  man  in 
his  own  order ;  Christ  the  first  fruits,  afterwards  they  that  are 
Christ's  at  his  coming."  Ver.  23.  No  man,  it  would  seem, 
need  mistake  the  subject.  It  is  not  a  resurrection  of  all  men  to 
holiness  and  happiness  in  heaven  ;  it  is  not  a  resurrection  to 
spiritual  life,  but  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  men,  is  the 
apostle's  subject.  He  teaches  us,  most  clearly  too,  by  implica 
tion,  that  all  will  not  be  Christ's,  at  his  coming  to  raise  the  dead. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  all,  that  the  death  of  the  body  is  taught 
by  the  first  member  of  the  text,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
by  the  second,  and  nothing  more.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
it  is  said  (Phil.  3  :  21)  of  Christ,  when  he  shall  come  to  raise 
the  dead,  that  he  "  shall  change  our  vile  body;  "  but  it  is  no 
where  said  he  shall  change  our  vile  soul ;  and  we  have  yet  to 
learn  that  anywhere  in  the  Bible,  anything  is  said  equivalent  to 
it.  But  suppose  we  go  directly  against  the  whole  scope  of  the 
apostle's  reasoning  here,  and  admit  that  spiritual  death  is  here 
intended ;  we  then  ask,  do  Universalists  hold  that  all  men  were 
exposed  to  endless  spiritual  death  or  misery,  by  dying  in  Adam, 
and  that  all  are  to  be,  by  Christ,  raised  to  endless  bliss  ?  This 
they  must  admit,  or  the  scale,  containing  the  first  member  of  the 
text,  kicks  the  beam  at  once,  and  the  "  even  so  "  is  even  non 
sense.  Will  Universalists  admit  that  Adam's  sin  affected  his 
own  future  state,  or  that  of  his  posterity  ?  If  they  do,  what  be 
comes  of  that  much  cherished  notion  among  them,  that  man's 
conduct  here  takes  no  hold  on  eternity  ?  for  if  Adam's  conduct 
took  hold  on  the  future  state,  then  does  the  conduct  of  all  men, 
inasmuch  as  the  principles  of  God's  moral  government  are  the 
same  respecting  all  men,  as  moral  beings.  There  is  no  avoiding 
this.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  death,  by  Adam,  takes  no 
hold  on  the  future  state,  then  the  life,  by  Christ,  takes  no  hold 
on  the  future  state,  for  it  is  "  EVEN  SO." 

It  is  well  known,  that  modern  Universalists  stoutly  contend 


Sec.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  217 

against  the  idea  that  mankind  are  at  all  exposed  to  a  future  hell, 
either  by  Adam's  or  their  own  sins.  Just  to  show  how  the  use 
they  make  of  this  passage,  when  properly  considered,  wars  with 
their  own  theory,  let  us  inquire,  what  do  they  contend  is  taught 
by  the  last  member  of  the  text,  or  what  is  in  the  second  scale  ? 
We  are  told,  with  great  confidence,  that  it  contains  Universal- 
ism.  Well,  what  is  Universalism  ?  It  is  this  :  All  men,  by  the 
resurrection,  will  be  raised  to  endless  bliss.  No  Universalist 
will  complain  of  this  definition.  This,  then,  is  what  the  second 
scale  contains.  Now  what  must  the  first  scale  contain  to'balance 
it?  Observe,  it  is  "  even  so."  It  must  contain,  then,  that 
which  is  directly  opposite.  Well,  what  is  that  ?  It  is  endless 
misery,  as  all  must  see.  There  is  no  avoiding  this,  as  the  text 
is  antithetical,  strictly  so.  From  this  view  of  their  interpreta 
tion  of  the  last  member  of  the  text,  we  arrive  at  the  following 
conclusion  :  by  Adam,  all  were  exposed  to  endless  misery  ;  by- 
Christ,  all  are  saved  from  endless  misery.  Now  modern  Uni- 
versalists  know  that  it  would  be  fatal  to  their  system  to  admit 
that  men  were  ever  exposed  to  endless  misery ;  therefore  they 
will  not  adopt  the  conclusion,  although  it  grows  legitimately  from 
the  premises  they  themselves  furnish.  Error  is  always  inconsist 
ent  with  itself.  The  doctrine  of  the  text,  as  we  have  seen,  is 
this  :  the  temporal  death  of  all  men  by  Adam,  the  resurrection 
of  the  bodies  of  all  by  Christ,  and  thus  the  scales  are  even. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above,  that  this  text  no  more  teaches 
the  salvation  of  all  men,  than  it  does  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
to  Palestine. 

That  some  of  our  readers  may  have  a  better  understanding  of 
Universalist  sentiments,  and  also  see  how  they  war  with  the 
scriptures,  we  shall  present  the  views  of  two,  who  have  been 
reckoned  among  their  ablest  divines,  upon  the  resurrection.  Mr. 
Balfour  contends  that  man  has  no  immortal  soul,  and  can  have 
no  patience  whatever  with  the  idea  of  disembodied  spirits.  Hear 
him  upon  this  point :  "  Man  comes  into  the  world  and  dies  simi 
lar  to  the  brute  creation.  God  made  man  wiser  than  the  beasts 


218  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

of  the  field,  or  the  fowls  of  the  air ;  and  he  has  given  him  a 
promise  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  :  but  to  say  he  has  gimi 
him  an  immortal  soul,  to  be  happy  or  miserable  in  a  disembodied 
state,  is  traveling  beyond  the  record."  Essay,  p.  97. 

His  doctrine  is,  that  none  that  have  died  since  the  world 
began,  have  now  any  conscious  existence,  neither  will  they  have 
until  the  resurrection,  then  all  will  be  raised  to  a  state  of  immor 
tal  bliss,  irrespective  of  character  here.  This  event  he  considers 
yet  future.  This  materialism  of  his  is  abundantly  refuted  by 
the  following  scriptures,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred,  to  say 
nothing  of  many  more  texts.  Eccl.  12  :  7  ;  Matt.  10  :  28  ; 
Luke  1G  :  19-31 ;  20  :  37,  38 ;  23  :  43-46  ;  24  :  36-40,  where 
our  Lord  sanctions  the  doctrine  of  disembodied  spirits ;  John 
11  :  26  ;  8  :  51  ;  Acts  7  :  59  ;  2  Cor.  12  : 1-4 ;  5  :  1-9 ;  Phil. 
1:20-25;  2  Pet,  1  :  13-15. 

The  materialism  of  Mr.  Balfour,  we  conclude,  has  never  been 
very  extensively  received  by  the  denomination,  for  such  is  the 
state  of  the  human  heart,  while  under  the  influence  of  modern 
Universalism,  that  the  rule  seems  to  be  readily  adopted  that  no 
doctrine  can  be  true  which  does  not  afford  its  recipients  the  most 
pleasurable  sensations  respecting  the  future,  whatever  may  be 
their  character  here. 

In  this  fact  is  found  a  reason  why  the  doctrine  of  a  limited 
future  punishment  has  been  so  generally  rejected,  which  was  at 
one  time  held  by  the  denomination.  (Sec.  CXXXVI.)  For 
the  same  reason  Mr.  Balfour 's  views  have  not  obtained  exten 
sively  among  them.  Errors  of  as  great  magnitude  as  Mr.  'B.'s 
are  readily  received  by  their  people,  if  they  are  only  in  keeping 
with  their  desires  ;  but  his  errors  have  the  misfortune  not  to  be 
of  this  stamp.  They  desire  to  be  happy  immediately  at  death. 
But  there  is  something  very  repulsive  in  the  thought  of  going 
into  a  state  of  nonentity,  perhaps  for  thousands  of  years,  before 
heavenly  bliss  can  be  enjoyed.  Hence  their  teachers,  who  are 
always  accommodating  men  upon  such  subjects,  and  are  always 
disposed  to  impart  peace  to  troubled  minds,  have  sought  out  an 


Sec.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    TUB   BIBLE.  219 

invention  by  which  all  men  are  to  enter  into  bliss  immediately 
•when  they  die.  So  far  as  we  can  learn  from  their  books  and 
papers,  the  ideas  which  prevail  most  extensively  among  Univer- 
salists  at  the  present  respecting  the  resurrection,  are,  that  it  is 
not  general,  but  successive,  or  as  some  say,  progressive,  and 
that  the  human  body  will  never  be  raised.  This  resurrection, 
they  conclude,  has  been  going  on,  from  the  time  of  Adam  down 
to  the  present.  Some  talk  of  it  as  though  it  took  place  at  death, 
and  others,  as  if  to  get  rid  of  certain  difficulties  growing  out  of 
a  death  resurrection,  would  have  a  space  of  insensibility  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  of  some  days'  duration.  The  fol 
lowing  extract  is  taken  from  a  sermon  by  Mr.  J.  B.  Dods,  who 
has  been  one  of  the  most  noted  divines  in  the  order,  and  from 
all  we  can  gather,  we  think  it  contains  very  nearly  the  senti 
ments  of  many  of  the  Universalists  upon  this  subject : 

"Wo  have  already  shown  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
was  to  be  at  the  sound  of  the  last  trump.  And  as  that  trump 
commenced  sounding  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  when  Christ 
came  in  his  kingdom,  I  deem  it  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact, 
that  the  dead  are  continually  rising  in  this  last,  this  gospel  day. 
But  the  question  presents  itself —  were  any  of  the  human  fam 
ily  raised  immortal  before  that  period  ?  To  this  question  I  give 
an  affirmative  answer.  I  firmly  believe,  that  the  dead  have  been 
rising  immortal  from  Adam  to  the  present  day,  for  God  has.  never 
changed  the  established  order  of  the  universe.  I  believe  that 

D 

the  dead  are  raised  without  any  miracle,  in  the  common  accep 
tation  of  that  term,  as  much  as  I  believe  that  we  are  born,  and 
die,  not  by  a  miracle,  but  according  to  that  constitution  of  things 
which  God  has  immutably  established  from  the  beginning.  I 
believe  this  doctrine  of  Christ  to  be  founded  upon  the  unchang 
ing  principles  of  philosophy,  but  so  mysterious,  that  man  in  his 
present  existence  cannot  comprehend  the  subtle  causes  and 
effects  by  which  he  shall  put  on  immortality."  Trumpet,  No. 
718. 
These  views  are  certainly  more  anti-scriptural  than  Mr.  Bal- 


220  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

four's,  for  with  all  his  absurdities,  we  must  give  him  the  credit 
of  one  correct  thought,  viz. :  a  future  general  resurrection  ;  but 
in  these  we  cannot  discover  even  one  truth.  These  views  war 
with  the  scriptures,  (ver.  20  and  28,)  which  declare  Christ  to 
be  the  first  fruits.  According  to  this  hypothesis,  the  first  fruits 
appeared  many  ages  before  Christ,  for  men  had  been  rising  from 
the  dead  ever  since  Cain  killed  Abel,  or  four  thousand  years  be 
fore  the  Saviour's  resurrection.  The  apostle,  as  if  he  here  fore 
saw  that  some  would  attempt  to  teach  that  the  phrase  "first 
fruits  "  has  reference  to  rank  and  not  to  the  order  of  the  resur 
rection,  has  established  the  fact  that  Christ  is  the  first  in  the 
immortal  resurrection,  by  language  which  cannot  be  frittered 
away.  In  Col.  1 :  18,  he  calls  him  "the  first  born  from  the 
dead,"  and  in  Acts  26  :  22,  23  he  says  : 

"Having  therefore  obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue  unto 
this  day,  witnessing  both  to  small  and  great,  saying  none  other 
things  than  those  which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should 
come  : 

"  That  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  he  should  be  the  first 
that  should  rise  from  the  dead,  and  should  shew  light  unto  the 
people,  and  to  the  Gentiles." 

"  Here  Christ  is  declared  by  the  inspired  apostle  to  be  "  the 
first  that  should  rise  from  the  dead."  A  progressive  resurrec 
tion  stands  opposed  to  those  scriptures,  which  speak  of  the  event 
as  yet  future.  See  Mark  12  :  23,  24  ;  Luke  14  : 14  ;  John 
5  :  28,  29  ;  Acts  24  :  15  ;  1  Thess.  4  : 14-17.  Others  might 
be  named,  but  these  texts  are  enough  to  establish  our  point. 
Again  :  This  resurrection  is  to  take  place  at  the  coming  of 
Christ.  1  Thess.  4  :  14-17  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  23.  Did  Christ  come 
at  the  resurrection,  thousands  of  years  before  he  assumed  human 
nature  ?  Does  he  now  come  at  the  death  of  every  individual  ? 
Are  the  scriptures  referred  to,  and  other  similar  ones  fulfilled, 
in  this  way  ?  Preposterous  !  Mr.  Balfour,  in  contending  with 
those  who  hold  that  the  resurrection  takes  place  at  death,  has 
the  following : 


Sec.  90.]     UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.          221 

"  When  shall  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  take  place  ?    Some 
say  it  takes  place  at  every  man's  death.     But  certainly  Martha 
did  not  think  so,  for  she  said  concerning  Lazarus  — '  I  know  that 
he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection   at  the  last  day.'     She 
probably  borrowed  the  phrase  last  day,  from  what  she  heard  our 
Lord  say,  (John  6  :  39,  40-45,)  where  he  four  times  spoke  of  the 
resurrection,  as  being  in  the  last  day.     If  the  resurrection  is  at 
a  man's  death,  she  ought  to  have  said  :  '  I  know  that  he  rose  four 
days  ago,'  for  Lazarus  had  been  four  days  dead.     But  she  spoke 
of  the  resurrection  and  the  last  day  as  simultaneous  events.     It 
appears  to  me,  that  the  resurrection,  the  last  day,  the  period 
called  the  end,  and  the  coming  of  Christ,  all  refer  to  the  same 
period.     But  how  many  years,  or  ages  until  it  arrives,  the  Bible, 
so  far  as  I  understand  it,  does  not  inform  us,  and  I  have  no  de 
sire  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written."     Essay,  p.  179. 

Again,  in  speaking  of  Christ's  conversation  with  the  Saddu- 
cees,  he  says  : 

"  In  concluding  my  remarks  on  these  passages,  I  would  merely 
notice,  that  if  the  resurrection  takes  place  at  a  man's  death,  both 
our  Lord  and  the  Sadducees  speak  as  if  they  had  been  of  a  dif 
ferent  opinion.  The  Sadducees  speak  of  it  as  a  future  event, 
thus  :  '  In  the  resurrection  therefore  when  they  shall  rise.'  So 
did  our  Lord,  for  he  says  :  '  For  when  they  shall  rise  from  the 
dead,  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage.'  But 
would  either  of  them  have  spoken  in  this  manner,  had  they  be 
lieved  that  every  man  is  raised  at  his  death  ?  It  is  easily  perceived 
that  this  would  have  entirely  altered  the  shape  of  the  Sadducees' 
question."  Essay,  p.  187. 

Mr.  Balfour's  arguments  upon  this  point  are  sound,  as  all 
must  see. 

Upon  the  hypothesis  of  Mr,  Dods,  and  others,  the  body  is 
never  to  be  raised.  But  we  ask,  was  not  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  the  pattern  of  ours  as  well  as  the  pledge  ?  Was  not 
Christ's  literal  body  raised?  or  was  his  only  the  resurrection  of 
the  spirit  ?  Said  he  to  his  astonished  disciples  after  his  resur- 


tfNIVEHSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

rection,  "  Handle  me  and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones  as  ye  see  me  have."  Surely,  if  the  scriptures  (Luke 
24  :  37-43)  do  not  teach  that  the  Saviour's  material  body,  the 
same  body  that  died  upon  the  cross,  and  was  put  into  the  sepul 
chre,  was  raised,  what  can  they  be  relied  upon  teaching  ? 

Another  thought.  Did  the  resurrection  of  Christ  take  place 
when  he  died  ?  Certainly  not. 

Should  it  be  thought  that  a  progressive  resurrection  militates 
no  more  against  the  idea  of  Christ's  being  the  first  fruits,  than 
the  resurrections  which  took  place  when  the  Saviour  was  upon 
earth,  such  as  that  of  the  widow's  son  and  Lazarus,  we  answer, 
these  have  no  connection  with  the  resurrection  taught  by  Chris 
tianity.  In  these  cases  there  was  divine  power  exerted,  or  a 
miracle  performed,  to  restore  natural  life  in  this  world.  This  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  the  Christian  resurrection,  by  which 
all  men  are  to  be  raised,  and  the  righteous  to  be  glorified  with 
their  Saviour  in  heaven.  We  know  not  that  any  ever  contended 
that  these  form  a  part  of  the  Christian  resurrection. 

Again  :  Universalists  have  written  much  to  prove  that  Christ 
came  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Will  they  give  ver.  23 
such  a  reference  ?  If  so,  then  the  resurrection  took  place  and 
death  was  destroyed  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ! 

"  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the 
kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father  ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down 
all  rule,  and  all  authority,  and  power."  Ver.  24. 

"  Then  cometh  the  end,"  that  is,  when  Christ  shall  come  to 
raise  the  dead.  By  "  the  kingdom  "  is  to  be  understood  Christ's 
mediatorial  kingdom,  which  shall  be  restored  to  God  the  Father 
when  he  (Christ)  shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  authority, 
and  power  which  opposed  itself  to  his  government.  See  on 
verses  27  and  28. 

"  For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his 
feet."  Ver.  25.  This  is  a  willing  subjection  say  Universalists, 
and  they  will  have  it  that  it  surely  indicates  the  salvation  of 
all  men.  But  we  see  nothing  whatever  to  warrant  such  an  as- 


Sec.  90.]  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  223 

sumption.  Remark,  he  must  reign,  not  till  he  makes  all  men 
holy  and  happy,  but  till  he  hath  put  all  his  enemies  under  his 
feet.  This  is  an  allusion  to  the  practice  of  conquerors  who  trod 
upon  the  necks  of  their  conquered  enemies.  This,  however, 
was  preparatory  to  their  destruction,  and  not  to  their  restoration, 
as  maybe  seen  Josh.  10  :  24-26. 

"  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death."  Yer.  26. 
Or  as  some  would  render  it,  "  The  last  enemy,  death,  shall  be 
destroyed."  Keep  in  mind  the  apostle's  subject,  which  is  not  a 
moral  resurrection,  and  consequently  it  is  not  moral  death  which 
shall  be  destroyed.  His  theme  is  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ; 
hence,  the  death  spoken  of  is  animal  death,  or  the  death  of  the 
body.  What  Paul  asserts,  is  simply  this:  "  Death,  the  last 
enemy  of  our  physical  nature  shall  be  destroyed  by  the  resurrec 
tion.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  making  all  the  race  holy  and 
happy  in  heaven  ?  Just  nothing. 

"  For  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But  when  he 
saith  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  ex- 
cepted  which  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when  all 
things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  be 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  maybe 
all  in  all.  Ver.  27  and  28. 

To  say  that  the  subjection  named  is  a  spiritual  and  willing 
one  of  all  moral  beings,  is  taking  for  granted  what  should  be 
proved.  It  is  mere  assumption.  When  a  sovereign  has  sub 
dued  his  rebellious  subjects,  are  we  to  understand  by  it  that  all 
are  to  be  restored  to  favor,  that  none  will  suffer  ?  A  strange 
conclusion  that.  Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  that  part  of 
the  text  which  says:  "That  God  may  be  all  in  all."  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  it  is  said  of  Christ,  (Eph.  1  :  23,) 
that  "  h*  filleth  all  in  all ;  "  also,  in  Col.  3  :11,  "  Christ  is  all  and 
in  all."  Christ  is  now  sovereign,  as  he  has  not  yet  delivered  the 
kingdom  to  God  the  Father;  and  in  the  government  of  it  he  is 
now  "all  in  all,"  yet  millions  are  unsaved.  This  being  the 
case,  the  sovereignty  may  be  transferred  to  the  Father,  and  he 


224  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

become  all  in  all,  in  the  sense  of  government,  which  is  the  sense 
intended,  and  still  a  portion  of  the  human  race  may  remain  un 
saved.  Observe  :  it  is  said,  "  Then  shall  the  Son  be  subject 
unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all,"  which  implies  that  if  the 
Son  should  not  deliver  up  the  kingdom  and  become  subject,  God 
could  not  be  all  in  all  in  the  sense  intended  in  the  text.  This 
plainly  shows  us  that  reference  is  had  to  authority  in  this  pas 
sage,  and  not  to  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  that  by  God's 
being  all  in  all,  nothing  more  is  meant  than  that  lie  will  then 
govern  the  universe  in  his  own  person,  as  he  did  before  all  power 
in  heaven  and  earth  was  transferred  to  Christ.  Matt.  28:  18. 
Thus  we  see  the  passage  yields  no  support  to  Universalism. 

"  But  some  man  will  say,  how  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  and 
with  what  body  do  they  come?"  Yer.  35.  This  is  not  the 
language  of  a  sincere  inquirer  after  truth,  but  of  an  objector. 
It  is  the  language  of  one  who  intended  to  make  the  most  direct 
and  positive  denial  of  the  doctrine.  From  the  argument  of  the 
apostle  it  appears  that  the  objection  was  based  upon  the  fact, 
that  the  body  after  death  becomes  decomposed,  and  mingles  with 
other  elements,  as  if  the  objector  had  said  :  The  dead  can  never 
be  raised  up,  for  the  thing  is  unreasonable  and  impossible,  as  the 
body  becomes  decomposed,  its  matter  is  scattered  and  its  identity 
is  destroyed.  Now,  this  is  in  substance  the  reasoning  of  a  large 
portion  of  Universalists  at  the  present  time,  against  the  resur 
rection  of  the  body. 

Prof.  Bush,  a  few  years  since,  came  to  their  aid,  and  has 
written  a  book  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  in  which  he 
says,  (p.  40)  :  "The  resurrection  of  the  body,  if  my  reason 
ing  and  expositions  arc  well  founded,  is  not  a  doctrine  of  reve 
lation."  Again  he  says,  (p.  70):  "The  resurrection  body  is 
that  part  of  our  present  being  to  which  the  essential  life  of  the 
man  pertains."  "  It  constitutes  the  inner  essential  vitalities  of 
our  present  bodies :  and  it  lives  again  in  another  state  because  it 
never  dies."  Again,  (  p.  170)  :  "  Let  it  (the  resurrection)  be 
understood  as  an  event  which  transpires  with  every  individual 
believer,  as  soon  as  he  leaves  the  body." 


Sec.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  225 

We  have  rarely  if  ever  found,  even  among  Uuiversalist 
writers,  more  bare-faced  skepticism  connected  with  a  professed 
regard  for  the  Bible,  than  is  found  in  the  book  from  which  these 
extracts  are  taken.  Everything  in  the  Bible  must  bow  to  his 
rational  deductions,  as  he  calls  them.  Speaking  of  the  body 
raised,  he  says :  "It  lives  again  in  another  state,  because  it 
never  dies.1"  If  we  look  at  this  chapter,  and  elsewhere  in  the 
Bible  where  the  resurrection  is  taught,  we  shall  find  that  it  is 
the  dead  that  are  raised.  We  think  it  would  puzzle  Mr.  Bush, 
with  all  his  philosophy,  to  show  how  they  are  raised  from  the 
dead  who  never  die!  We  have  shown  on  ver.  23,  the  anti- 
scriptural  character  of  the  notion,  that  the  resurrection  takes 
place  when  a  man  dies,  which  need  not  be  repeated  here.  The 
resurrection  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  upon  philosophical  princi 
ples,  but  is  an  effect  produced  by  the  immediate  agency  of  God. 
It  is  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  miracle  and  in  no  other, 
and  certainly  the  man  who  lays  any  claim  to  a  belief  in  Chris 
tianity  must  admit  that  God  can  perform  a  miracle.  Then, 
"  why  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you,  tha*t  God 
should  raise  the  dead  ?  "  Acts  26  :  8. 

Wha£  though  the  body  be  decomposed,  and  form  new  compo 
sitions,  or  be  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  is  not  Almighty  power 
and  skill  adequate  to  the  task  of  raising  the  same  identical  body  ? 
"  Cannot  the  chemist  take  a  piece  of  gold  coin  into  his  laborato 
ry,  file  it  to  powder,  dissolve  it  with  acids,  alloy  it  with  other 
metals,  grind  it  again  to  powder,  throw  it  into  the  fire,  and  min 
gle  it  with  soot,  ashes,  and  charcoal,  and  yet  bring  out  the  same 
fine  gold  ?  And  cannot  he  mold  it  again  in  the  same  die,  and  be 
perfectly  sure  that  it  is  the  very  same  gold  ?  And  is  the  God 
of  all  power  and  wisdom,  whose  vast  laboratory  is  the  universe, 
less  skillful  than  the  creatures  he  has  made  ?  And  cannot  he, 
who  is  intimately  present  to  every  particle  of  matter,  who  knows 
every  particle  by  name,  and  whose  power  has  brought  every 
particle  into  being,  collect  together  again  the  scattered  frag 
ments  of  the  human  frame,  although  mingled  with  the  elements, 
12 


226  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

and  driven  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven.  May  we  not  reply  to 
those  making  this  objection  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  "  Ye 
do  err,  not  knowing  the  scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God" 
Rev.  G.  Kingsley. 

"  Thou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened  except 
it  die  :  and  that  which  thou  sowest,"  &c.  Ver.  39-49.  Paul 
answers  the  objection  named  ver.  35,  and  says  :  "Thou  fool! 
objectest  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  because  it  is  dead, 
and  decomposed,  and  mingled  with  the  dust.  But  your  own 
experience  shall  condemn  you  ;  for  the  very  seed  you  sow, 
whether  wheat  or  other  grain,  never  rises  out  of  the  ground  ex 
cept  it  die  and  become  decomposed,  the  very  objection  you  al 
lege  against  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  You  talk  of  the 
body  as  being  a  mass  of  loathsome  corruption.  But  even  the 
grain  you  sow  becomes  the  same  in  this  respect.  But  you  do 
not  sow  the  body  that  shall  be,  as  to  this  circumstance,  but 
naked  grain  which  putrifies  in  the  earth ;  but  God  giveth  it  a 
body  such  as  pleases  him,  differing  as  to  the  circumstances  just 
mentioned,  but  composed  of  the  same  matter.  It  comes  forth 
from  corruption  new  and  beautiful.  So  is  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  The  body  that  is  sown  or  buried  in  the  earth  is  not 
the  same  body  that  rises  again,  as  to  its  frailty  and  tendency  to 
corruption  and  dissolution,  though  composed  of  the  same  matter ; 
for  (ver.  42-44)  "  it  is  sown  in  corruption,  in  a  state  of  decay  : 
"it  is  raised  in  incorruption.  It  is  sown  in  dishonor ;  it  is 
raised  in  glory.  It  is  sown  in  weakness;  it  is  raised  in 
power.  It  is  sown  a  natural  body,"  the  subject  of  all 
these  weaknesses ;  "it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body,"  subject  to 
none  of  them.  For  "  there  is  a  natural  body,"  namely,  that 
which  was  sown,  "  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body,"  namely,  that 
which  rises  again,  very  different  as  to  its  circumstances,  but  com 
posed  of  the  same  substance.  This  we  conceive  to  be  the  true 
state  of  the  apostle's  argument,  without  ever  being  intended  to 
give  the  least  sanction  to  the  "  germ  "  doctrine.  Any  compari 
son  may  be  tortured  and  spoiled  by  tracing  analogies  which  were 
never  intended.  The  point  of  comparison  is  a  state  of  decay 


Sec.  90. j  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  227 

and  corruption,  in  both  the  grain  and  the  body,  and  the  coming 
forth  out  of  a  state  of  corruption  to  new  life  and  vigor.  It  was 
God  who  gave  the  grain  such  a  body  as  pleased  him ;  and  the 
God  that  could  do  the  one  could  do  the  other.  "It  is  sown  in 
corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorruption."  What  is  sown  in  cor 
ruption  ?  Why  the  dead  body,  carrying  out  the  metaphor  of 
the  grain.  "  It  is  raised  in  incorruption."  What  is  raised  in 
incorruption  ?  Why  that  which  was  sown  in  corruption, 
namely,  the  body.  What  else  was  sown  in  corruption  ?  Was 
the  resurrection  body  of  the  new  theory  ever  sown  or  buried 
in  corruption?  It  was  never  sown  or  buried  at  all,  for  "it 
escapes  from  the  body  before  it  is  consigned  to  the  dust."  It 
never  was  corruptible  at  all ;  for  "  it  is  immortal  in  its  own 
nature."  It  was  never  dead  at  all ;  for  "it  lives  in  another 
state,  because  it  never  dies."  It  never  had  any  body  at  all;  "  it 
is  only  called  a  body  because  of  the  poverty  of  human  language." 
"  It  is  sown  in  dishonor,  it  is  raised  in  glory."  What  is  sown 
in  dishonor  ?  Why,  the  body,  in  a  state  of  dissolution,  when  it 
becomes  food  for  worms.  "It  is  raised  in  glory."  What  is 
raised  in  glory  ?  Why,  that  which  was  sown,  or  buried,  in  dis 
honor,  viz.,  the  body.  "  It  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in 
power."  What  is  raised  in  power?  Why,  that  which  was 
sown  in  weakness,  viz.,  the  body.  "  It  is  sown  a  natural  body, 
it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body."  What  is  raised  a  spiritual  body  ? 
Why,  that  which  was  sown  a  natural  body.  What  else  is  sown 
or  buried,  but  the  natural  body  ?  It  is  the  same  natural  body 
which  becomes  changed  to  a  spiritual  body  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead."  Rev.  C.  Kingsley. 

Mr.  Kingsley,  in  the  work  from  which  this  extract  is  taken, 
is  combating  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  by  Prof. 
Bush ;  hence,  some  of  these  points  which  have  a  bearing  upon 
the  Universalist  controversy  are  unnoticed.  We  add  a  few 
thoughts. 

The  apostle  in  this  passage  is  treating  upon  the  spiritual  cor 
poreity  of  the  resurrection  body,  which  differs  radically  from 


228  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

flesh  and  blood,  and  is  contrasting  it  with  the  gross  animal  putre 
factive  corporeity  of  the  present  state.  It  has  been  asserted 
that  by  "  the  dead"  (ver.  35,)  all  the  dead  are  meant.  But 
admitting  that  the  apostle  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  objector 
the  question,  "  How  are  all  the  dead  raised  up?  "  it  would  by 
no  means  follow,  that  what  is  said  in  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is 
true  of  all  men.  But  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  phrase,  "  the 
dead"  necessarily  means  all  the  dead.  If  Universalists  contend 
that  it  does,  let  them  never  refer  to  Rev.  20  :  12,  13,  where  the 
expression  occurs  four  times,  to  Jerusalem's  destruction  again. 
Guide,  p.  240.  The  sense  is  to  be  determined  by  the  connec 
tion  in  which  the  expression  is  found.  It  is  obvious  that  Paul 
means  by  "  the  dead"  those  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  Christ, 
(ver.  18,)  who  are  Christ's  at  his  coming,  (ver.  23).  What 
follows  was  addressed  to  "  brethren,"  and  the  use  of  the  pro 
noun  we,  as  we  find  it,  shows  us  that  he  was  speaking  of  Chris 
tians  only. 

"  It  is  raised  in  glory."  Are  we  instructed  by  this  that  all 
men,  the  wicked  as  well  as  the  righteous,  are  to  be  raised  in 
glory  ?  This  is  the  assumption,  but  it  is  without  proof.  The 
proof  is  all  to  the  contrary.  Observe  :  The  resurrection  named 
in  this  chapter  is  to  take  place  at  the  coming  of  Christ.  Yer. 
23.  That  all  men  are  not  to  be  raised  to  glory  at  Christ's 
coming,  is  evident  from  1  Thess.  1  :  7-10,  where  a  marked  dis 
tinction  is  made  between  Christ's  saints  and  the  wicked.  (Sec. 
XLI.) 

We  are  not  to  make  the  inspired  apostle  contradict  himself. 
In  Acts  24  : 15,  speaking  of  the  Pharisees,  who  were  accusing 
him  of  heresy,  in  repelling  the  charge,  he  says  :  "  And  have  hope 
toward  God,  which  they  themselves  allow,  that  there  shall  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust."  Now 
what  did  the  Pharisees  allow  ?  Did  they  allow  that  all  men 
would  be  raised  in  glory  ?  By  no  means.  They  held  that  the 
righteous  only  would  be  raised  in  glory ;  and  as  Paul  declares 
he  believed  with  them  upon  this  point,  he  of  course  is  teaching 


Sec.   90.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

nothing  contrary  to  this   in   the   chapter   under   examination. 
(Sec.  X.) 

We  must  not  contradict  the  Son  of  God.     Where  has  he  ever 
informed  us  that  all  shall  be  raised  in  glory  ?     Nowhere.     But 
he  has  informed  us  that  the  wicked  shall  be  raised  to  damnation, 
(John  5  :  29,)  which  is  quite  another  thing.     Where  in  all  the 
Bible  is  it  to  be  found,  that  all  men  are  to  be  glorified  with  Christ 
at  the  resurrection  ?     It  is  not  to  be  found  ;  but  wherever  the 
subject  is  named,  it  is   confined  to  saints.     Take  the  follow 
ing',  (Col.  3:4):   "  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  appear, 
then  shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory."      Ye.    Who  ?     All 
men  ?     No  ;  but  Christians,  as  may  be  seen  by  the   context. 
Rom.    8  :  17.       "  If    so   be   that  we    suffer   with   him,    that 
we    may   le    glorified   together."      This,  too,  is    spoken  of 
Christians,    and   none    else.      Phil.    3:20,    21.       "For   our 
conversation  is    in   heaven;    from  whence   we    look    for   the 
Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus   Christ :   who  shall  change  our  vile 
body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body." 
Here  again  the  same  idea  is  presented,  namely  :  That  Chris 
tians  are  those  who  are  to  be  glorified  with  Christ  when  he 
shall  come  to  raise  the  dead.       Observe,    too,   it   is   not  the 
vile  soul  which  is  to  be  changed,  but  the  vile  body,  and  this 
agrees  with  the  subject  of  this  chapter.     As  then,  the  righteous 
dead  only  are  the  subjects  of  this  glorification,  nothing  is  gained 
by  it  for  the  doctrine  of  Universalism. 

"  Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  cannot  in 
herit  the  kingdom  of  God,"  &c.  Ver.  50-52.  Here  we  learn 
that  "flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God;" 
that  is,  in  its  frail  perishing  state,  hence  the  need  of  a  change. 
But  what  shall  become  of  those  who  are  still  living  when  Christ 
shall  come  to  raise  the  dead  ?  Paul  reveals  the  mystery.  "  We 
shall  not  all  sleep,  that  is,  all  will  not  die,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye."  The  idea 
is,  that  the  change  that  will  pass  upon  the  bodies  of  the  living, 
will  make  them  precisely  like  those  of  the  dead  after  the  resurrec- 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

tion.  It  will  be  seen,  too,  that  the  change  and  resurrection  are 
simultaneous  events,  which  forever  destroys  the  doctrine  of  a 
progressive  resurrection.  Paul  speaks  of  the  same  resurrec 
tion,  1  Thess.  4:  14-17.  The  reader  will  find  this  transcribed 
in  Sec.  XXVI.,  also  a  quotation  from  Mr.  Whittemorc,  admit 
ting  that  it  refers  to  Christ's  coming  to  raise  the  dead. 

In  comparing  1  Thess.  4  :  14-17  with  this  chapter  we  find 
the  following  points  of  resemblance. 

1.  Cor.  The  coming  of  Christ  is  taught.     Ver.  23. 

Thess.   "  We  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  comino-  of 
the  Lord."     Ver.  15. 

2.  Cor.  The   resurrection   of  the   pious   dead    is   the   theme 

Ver.  52. 
Thess.   "  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise."     Ver.   1C. 

3.  Cor.  In  stating  the  order,  they  that  are   Christ's  are  to  be 

raised  first."     Ver.  23. 
Thess.  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.     Ver.  16. 

4.  Cor.  The  death  of  the  body  is  called  a  sleep.     Ver.  51. 
Thess.   "Them  also  which  sleep  in  Jesus  shall  God  brino- 

with  him."     Ver.  14. 

5.  Cor.  The  bodies  of  the  living  saints  are  to  be  changed  when 

Christ  shall  come.     Ver.  52. 

Thess.  "  Then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught 
up  together  with  them."     Ver.  17. 

6.  Cor.  The  change  of  the  living  and  the  resurrection  of  the 

dead,  are  to  take  place  instantly  at  the  coming  of  Christ 

and  the  sound  of  the  trump.     Ver.  52. 
Thess.   "  The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with 

a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump 

of  God."     Ver.  10. 

No  man  can  well  mistake  the  apostle.  He  is  describing  the 
same  event  in  one  epistle  that  he  is  in  the  other.  How  utterly 
at  variance  is  this  description  with  the  doctrine  that  every  man  is 
raised  when  he  dies.  Some  have  asserted  that  all  men  are  to  be 
changed  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  (ver.  52)  from  sin  to  holi- 


Sec.   90.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  231 

ness.  This  change  is  not  predicated  of  all  men,  and  if  it  were, 
it  would  prove  nothing  in  favor  of  such  a  view,  for  it  is  not  the 
soul  which  is  to  be  changed,  but  the  body.  But  Christians  are 
the  class  the  apostle  is  speaking  of. 

"  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption,"  &c.  Yer. 
53,  54.  In  these  verses  we  learn  that  when  the  saints  are  raised 
that  this  corruptible  mortal  body  will  put  on  incorruption  and 
immortality,  and  in  this  will  be  fulfilled  "  the  saying  that  is 
written,  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory."  What  death?  Why 
the  death  of  the  body,  which  is  corruptible  and  mortal,  as  the 
whole  connection  shows.  How  false  the  notion,  that  the  body  is 
never  to  be  raised ;  for  what  is  this  corruptible  and  mortal  to  be 
raised,  if  it  is  not  the  body  ? 

"  0  death,  where  is  thy  sting?  0  grave,  where  is  thy  vic 
tory  ?  The  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  &c.  Ver.  55-57.  Here 
death  is  personified,  and  is  said  to  have  a  sting,  which  is  sin. 
What  is  meant  by  this  ?  Its  most  obvious  meaning  is  this  :  Si?i- 
ners  fear  to  die  because  of  their  sins.  The  tormenting  fear  of 
death,  then,  produced  by  sin,  is  its  sting.  But  we  ask  why, 
upon  Universalist  principles,  should  the  vilest  wretch  in  creation 
fear  death?  This  theory  asserts  that,  "so  far  as  admission  to 
endless  glory  is  concerned,  the  saint  and  sinner  stand  on  a  per 
fect  level."  U.  Ill  and  Def.,  p.  266. 

So  we  see  that  the  most  polluted  sinner  is  just  as  well  pre 
pared  for  death,  so  far  as  the  future  is  concerned,  as  the  most 
holy  saint,  and  has  in  reality  no  more  to  fear.  This  one  idea, 
"  the  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  when  properly  considered,  over 
throws  of  itself  the  no  future  punishment  theory.  This  theory 
stands  directly  opposed  to  the  idea  that  the  sting  of  death  is  sin, 
and  therefore  must  be  false.  The  apostle  exclaims  :  "  Thanks 
be  to  God,  which  giveth  us  the  victory,"  &c.  Us.  Who?  All 
men  ?  No,  it  is  Christians  he  is  speaking  of. 

"Therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,"  &c.  Yer.  58.  This 
verse  closes  up  the  apostle's  argument,  and  in  it  he  connects 
man's  conduct  in  this  world  with  his  eternal  state  ;  for  in  re- 


232  TJNITERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ferring  to  what  he  had  been  saying  concerning  the  resurrection 
of  the  righteous  dead,  he  says  :  "  Therefore,  my  beloved  breth 
ren,  be  ye  steadfast,  unmovable,  alwaj^s  abounding  in  the  work 
of  the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  your  labor  is  not  in  vain 
in  the  Lord." 

This  exhortation  harmonizes  with  the  apostle's  own  practice, 
who  was  willing  to  sacrifice  every  worldly  consideration,  "if," 
says  he,  "I  might  by  any  means  attain  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead."  Phil.  3:11.  What  did  he  mean  by  this  ?  Did 
he  fear  that  he  would  not  be  raised  at  all  ?  That  cannot  be  it, 
for  he  has  declared  (Acts  24  :  15)  most  positively  that  he  be 
lieved  in  the  resurrection  of  all  men.  It  was  the  blissful  resur 
rection  of  the  just  to  which  he  aspired.  What  should  we  think 
of  a  Universalist  minister  in  our  time,  who,  in  speaking  of  his 
labors  and  sacrifices,  should  assign  as  a  reason  for  his  so  doing, 
his  anxiety  ' '  to  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  ' '  What 
should  we  think,  were  he  to  exhort  others  to  labor  and  steadfast 
ness  in  reference  to  a  future  state  ?  Think  ?  why  we  should 
think  he  was  either  playing  the  hypocrite,  or  that  he  had  re 
nounced  his  Universalism.  Yet  Paul  is  called  a  Universalist  ! 

We  have  thus  passed  through  that  portion  of  this  chapter 
which  treats  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  This  is  called  the 
Magna  Charta  of  Universalism.  But  where  is  that  doctrine 
taught  in  it  ?  Where  is  it  once  said  that  all  shall  be  saved  in 
the  resurrection,  or  that  which  is  equivalent  to  it  ?  The  place 
cannot  be  shown  ;  but  on  the  contrary  it  lies  with  great  weight 
against  certain  doctrines  advocated  by  Universalists  with  great 
zeal,  as  the  following  will  show  : 

1.  It  is  asserted  in  this  chapter  that,  "  By  man  came  death." 
But  Universalism  teaches  that  man  was   created  mortal,  and 
would  have  died  if  he  had  never  sinned,  and  so  death  is  attrib 
uted  to  God  and  not  to  man,  and  thus  the  apostle  is  contra 
dicted. 

2.  Universalists  very  generally  discard  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.     But  Paul  teaches  it  most  explicitly  in  this  chapter,  as 
we  have  shown. 


Sec.  90.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  233 

3.  Universalists  very  generally  teach  a  progressive  resurrec 
tion;  that  men  have  been  rising  from  Adam  to  the  present  time. 
But  in  this  chapter  it  is  represented  as  instantaneous. 

4.  Universalists  teach  that  all  will  be  Christ's  in  the  resurrection. 
But  the  apostle  speaks  of  those  who  "  are  Christ's  at  his  com 
ing,"  thus  making  a  distinction  between  those  who  art  his  and 
those  who  are  not. 

5.  Universalists  very  generally  deny  the  second  personal  ad- 
ven  of  Christ  to  raise  the  dead.    But  Paul  teaches  it,  as  we  have 
seen.     (Sec  XLI.) 

6.  Universalism  teaches  that,   "  As  there  is  no  intimation  of 
any  difference  of  situation,  or  any  distinction  in  the  plentitude 
of  their  blessedness,  we  are  authorized  to  believe  that  the  res 
urrection  state  is  one  of  equality."     Scrip.  Doc.,  p  42.     But 
Paul  makes  a  distinction  even  among  the  righteous  in  the  resur 
rection.     Yer.  41,  42. 

7.  Universalism  says  :  "  The  phrase    '  kingdom  of  God/  we 
have  already  frequently  explained  in  these   pages.     It  signifies 
the  moral  reign  of  Jesus  upon   earth."      Guide,  p.  182.     But 
Paul  uses  the  expression  to  designate  the  future  state.    Ver.  50, 
This  must  be  admitted,  unless  the  resurrection  named  and  its 
predicates  take  place  in  this  world  ;  a  position  which  would  at 
once  destroy  all  the  capital  Universalists  wish   to  make  out  of 
the  chapter. 

8.  Paul  teaches  that  the  sting  of  death  is  sin.     Universalism 
teaches  that  sin  is  no  more  its  staag  than  holiness,  as  we  have 
seen. 

9.  Universalists  scout  the  idea  that  our  actions  here,  affect 
our  future  condition.     Mr.  Whittemore  thinks  it   "is  alike  rea 
sonable  with  saying  that  a  man  who  sows  a  field  of  grain  in  Mas 
sachusetts,  shall  reap  the  harvest  from  it  in  the  State  of  Ohio." 
Trumpet,  No.  635.     But  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  exhorts  his 
brethren  to  labor  in  reference  to  the  future  world. 

In   at  least  these  nine  particulars,  are  Universalist  teachings 
at  war  with  the  evangelical  teachings  of  Paul  in  this  chapter. 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

And  here  we  add,  that  with  the  same  liberty  Universalists  take 
with  certain  phrases  and  texts,  an  ingenious  man  could,  with 
some  good  degree  of  plausibility,  deprive  this  whole  chapter  of 
its  future-state  reference.  (Sec.  CXXIII.)  As  Mr.  Whitte- 
more  has  furnished  us  a  rule,  (Sec.  CXV,)  let  us  now  apply  it 
to  this  chapter.  Is  it  said  that  all  men  shall  be  holy  and  happy 
in  eternity  ?  Is  it  once  said  that  all  men  shall  enjoy  endless 
bliss  beyond  the  grave  ?  As  this  is  not  said,  we  conclude  noth 
ing  like  it  is  meant  in  this  chapter.  Observe,  we  do  not  adopt 
this  rule,  but  only  apply  it  to  show  how  the  demand  for  a  par 
ticular  phraseology,  that  Mr.  Whittemore  makes,  will  destroy  his 
own  proof  texts. 

XCI.  "  But  they  which  shall  he  accounted  worthy  to  obtain 
that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry, 
nor  are  given  in  marriage  ;  neither  can  they  die  any  more : 
for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ;  and  are  the  children  of 
God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection."  Luke  20  :  35, 
36  ;  Matt.  22  :  30 ;  Mark  12  :  25. 

The  assumption  is,  that  all  men  by  the  resurrection  are  to  be 
made  equal  unto  the  angels,  and  are  to  die  no  more.  But  the 
reader  will  see  at  a  glance,  that  what  is  here  asserted  by  the 
Saviour  is  not  spoken  of  all  men,  but  of  a  particular  class, 
"  they  which  shall  be  accounted  worthy."  This  passage  and 
Matt.  22  :  30  ;  Mark  11  :  25  are  parallel  texts.  They  occur  in 
our  Lord's  conversation  with  the  Sadducees.  The  rule  laid 
down  for  the  interpretation  of  parallels,  is  this  :  "  Where  par 
allel  passages  present  themselves,  the  clearer  and  more  copious 
place  must  be  selected  to  illustrate  one  that  is  more  briefly  and 
obscurely  expressed."  Home. 

All  who  acknowledge  the  divine  authority  of  the  scriptures, 
will  see  that  this  rule  is  a  just  one,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  would  ex 
press  nothing  unimportant  or  untrue.  The  text  in  Luke  is  the 
more  full  and  copious,  and  among  other  things  not  found  in 
Matthew  and  Mark,  is  this :  "  But  they  which  shall  he  accounted 


Sec.  91.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  235 

worthy  to  obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead."  This  part  of  the  text  stands  directly  in  the  way  of  these 
expounders,  so  they  must  get  rid  of  it,  by  hook  or  by  crook. 
To  do  this,  the  rule  named  is  trampled  under  foot,  as  all  will 
see,  by  the  following  comment  upon  these  texts,  from  the 
"  Guide  to  Universalism,"  p.  155  : 

"  John  makes  no  record  of  our  Lord's  conversation  with  the 
Sadducees  on  this  subject  at  all.  Now  what  shall  we  do  ?  We 
find,  that  two  or  three  Evangelists  who  report  this  discourse, 
make  no  mention  of  the  qualification  found  in  Luke.  But  what 
then  ?  Are  we,  therefore,  to  say  that  what  Luke  reported  is  not 
true  ?  No,  certainly  not.  What  we  are  after  is  the  weight  of 
evidence  as  to  the  importance  of  that  qualification.  And  that 
weight  is  as  two  to  one  against  the  importance  of  the  words  in 
question.  We  say  against  the  importance,  because  had  Mat 
thew  and  Mark  considered  them  important,  (as  the  objection  we 
are  noticing  certainly  is,)  it  is  hardly  rational  to  conclude  they 
would  have  omitted  them  altogether.  The  most  probable  con 
clusion  is,  that,  whatever  we  may  understand  by  the  words  now, 
Luke  did  not  intend  by  his  report  to  give  a  sense  to  the  conver 
sation,  which  the  other  Evangelists  did  not  receive  or  record. 
They  ought  to  be  understood  as  harmonizing." 

Here  you  have  it,  reader,  with  all  its  beauties.  Mr.  W. 
would  not  say,  that  what  Luke  says  is  not  true.  No,  that  would 
be  showing  the  cloven  foot  of  Infidelity  too  plainly.  But  he 
makes  a  dust  about  the  importance  of  the  qualification,  if  pos 
sible,  to  destroy  the  force  of  the  Saviour's  words.  But  there 
they  stand  faithfully  recorded,  and  with  mighty  weight,  too, 
against  the  Universalist  perversion  of  this  passage.  Mr.  W. 
knows  this,  hence  his  labor  to  render  them  unimportant.  To 
labor  to  make  them  unimportant,  is  virtually  to  labor  to  fix  upon 
the  Saviour  the  character  of  a  trifler.  To  say  that  all  men  shall 
be  accounted  worthy,  is  to  make  the  Saviour  utter  nonsense. 
Why  is  the  qualifying  phrase  thrown  in,  if  there  is  no  distinc 
tion  in  the  future  world  ? 


236  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

It  will  not  be  admitted  that  the  Saviour  taught  by  implication 
in  this  passage,  that  a  part  of  mankind  would  never  be  raised 
from  the  dead,  as  that  would  be  fatal  to  Universalism  ;  for,  ac 
cording  to  that  theory,  if  they  are  not  raised,  then  are  they  an 
nihilated  ;  and,  if  annihilated,  then  are  they  not  saved. 

With  this  text  before  us,  one  of  three  things  must  be  admit- 
ed  :  either  Christ  used  words  without  meaning,  or  he  taught 
that  some  would  never  rise  from  the  dead,  or  else  he  had  respect 
to  some  particular  condition  or  resurrection  in  the  future  world. 
To  adopt  the  first  of  these  is  impous,  and  to  adopt  the  second  is 
fatal  to  Universalism.  The  third  is  equally  fatal  to  this  dogma, 
but  contains  the  truth,  for  every  candid  mind  must  see  that  the 
Saviour,  in  his  reply  to  the  Sadducees,  referred  to  the  prepara 
tion  necessary  in  order  to  enter  that  blissful  spirit  world  where 
the  souls  of  the  righteous  go  after  death,  and  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  just,  or  the  righteous  dead  —  the  same  resurrection  to 
which  Paul  aspired,  (Phil.  3  : 11,)  who  was  willing  to  sacrifice 
everything  the  world  calls  good  and  great,  "if,"  says  he,  "  I 
might  by  any  means  attain  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.'1 
(See  Sec.  CVI.) 

Now  Paul  was  under  no  fearful  apprehension  that  all  would 
not  be  raised,  for  he  has  declared  his  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  all  men,  (Acts  24  : 15)  ;  but  he  knew  there  was  danger  of 
his  failing  of  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  and  it  was  this,  he 
labored  to  secure.  Again,  there  is  a  portion  of  the  passage  in 
Luke,  which  Universalists  often  press  into  their  service.  It  is 
this  :  neither  can  they  die  any  more,1'  "  are  the  children  of 
God,  being  the  children  of  the  resurrection."  Neither  Matthew 
or  Mark  record  these  saying ;  therefore,  according  to  Mr.  Whit- 
temore's  logic,  they  can  be  of  but  little  importance ;  yet  this 
same  man,  and  others  of  like  faith,  find  it  very  convenient  to 
pervert  them,  and  make  them  very  important  in  teaching  their 
errors  !  Take  the  following  oft-perverted,  yet  much-relied-upon 
text,  by  Universalists,  to  prove  their  doctrine  :  "  And  I,  if  I  be 
lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  John 


Sec.  91.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  237 

12  :  32.  This  is  recorded  only  by  John.  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke  have  said  nothing  about  it.  Is  it  therefore  of  but  little 
importance  ?  All  will  see  the  wickedness  of  adopting  such  a 
method  with  the  scriptures,  and  how  large  a  portion  of  the  gos 
pels  must  wilt  away  into  little  importance  under  such  an  inter 
pretation. 

The  Saviour  is  not  speaking  to  the  Sadducees  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  happiness  after  death,  but  upon  the  subject  of  marriage. 
The  objection  in  their  minds  is  not  a  supposed  difficulty  as  to 
moral  character  in  the  resurrection,  but  as  to  conjugal  relations. 
He  tells  them  that  they  err,  not  knowing  the  scriptures  nor  the 
power  of  God ;  for  in  the  resurrection  they  neither  marry  nor 
are  given  in  marriage,  but  concerning  marriage,  are  as  the 
angels  in  heaven.  This  is  true  of  all  in  the  future  state,  whether 
good  or  bad  ;  but  the  Saviour,  as  before  stated,  is  speaking  only 
of  the  good  or  worthy.  But  do  men  merit  the  bliss  of  heaven  ? 
The  word  worthy,  as  here  used,  is  not  to  be  understood  in  the 
sense  of  merit,  but  of  suitableness,  the  same  sense  it  bears  in 
Rev.  3:4:  "  They  shall  walk  with  me  in  white,  for  they  are 
worthy  ;  "  that  is,  they  are  suitable  or  qualified.  From  the  con 
text  we  learn  that  the  audience  of  the  Saviour  was  a  mixed  mul 
titude  of  disciples,  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  None  of  them 
were  Universalists.  The  Sadducees  denied  a  future  existence, 
and  the  Pharisees  believed  in  a  resurrection  and  endless  punish 
ment.  The  Saviour  not  only  meets  the  objection  of  the  Sad 
ducees  concerning  the  resurrection,  but  he  also  exposes  their 
error  respecting  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  by  proving  that 
doctrine  true  from  the  Pentateuch,  the  five  books  of  Moses, 
which  they  professed  to  receive.  In  doing  this,  Universalists 
will  have  it  that  he  preached  their  doctrine  most  clearly  to  his 
hearers.  If  he  did,  he  was  understood  by  them,  for  it  would  be 
a  severe  reflection  upon  the  Great  Teacher  to  say  that  he  failed 
to  make  himself  understood.  But  is  there  any  evidence  that 
they  so  understood  him  ?  Observe  :  Universalists  have  told  us 
that  the  great  cause  of  our  Saviour's  ill  treatment  by  the  Phari- 


238  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

sees,  was  his  Universalism.  Well,  now,  here  are  his  shrewd  op- 
posers,  the  Pharisees,  believers  in  endless  punishment,  who  are 
present  for  the  express  purpose  that  "  they  might  take  hold  of 
his  words."  Ver.  20.  Do  they  raise  any  objections  to  his 
words  on  this  occasion  ?  None  at  all ;  but  express  their  unqual 
ified  approbation  thus:  "  Master  thou  hast  well  said."  Ver. 
89.  Would  these  Partialists  have  spoken  thus,  if  he  had 
taught  them  Universalism  in  this  connection  ?  Never.  Christ 
exercised  his  whole  ministry  among  believers  in  endless  punish 
ment,  but  he  never  came  in  collision  with  them  upon  this  point, 
or  rebuked  the  doctrine  in  a  single  instance.  (Sec.  CXXXII.) 
How  unlike  the  course  pursued  by  Universalist  ministers  in  our 
time.  What  would  be  thought  of  a  minister  of  that  order  who 
should  remain  silent  upon  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment, 
and  should  use  such  a  qualifying  expression  as  "  they  which 
shall  be  accounted  worthy  to  obtain,"  when  speaking  of  the 
future  state  ?  With  these  facts  before  us,  all  must  see  that  using 
this  passage  to  prove  the  salvation  of  all  men,  is  a  most  palpable 
perversion.  (See  Sec.  C XXIII.) 

XCII.  "  And  fear  not  them  which  Mil  the  body,  but  are  not 
able  to  kill  the  soul ;  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell."  Matt.  10  :  28 ;  Luke 
12  :  4,  5. 

We  have  in  the  Gruide,  p.  92,  on  this  declaration  of  the 
Saviour,  a  specimen  of  the  treatment  those  texts  receive  which 
are  directly  opposed  to  Universalism.  Says  the  author,  "  This 
passage  is,  confessedly,  difficult  of  construction."  Very  diffi 
cult  for  Universalism,  we  admit.  He  then  favors  us  with  quib 
bles,  questions,  negatives,  and  Greek  criticisms.  He  tells  us 
again  and  again  what  it  does  not  mean,  but  leaves  us  staring 
about  to  learn  what  it  does  mean.  He  informs  us  that  "  various 
explanations  of  this  passage  have  been  given  by  Universalists," 
and  refers  us  to  a  string  of  authors,  whose  productions  probably 
not  one  in  a  hundred  of  his  readers  will  ever  see.  Failing  to 


Sec.  92.]  UNIVERSALISH    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  239 

find  in  the  Guide  how  the  author  would  construe  the  text,  we 
betake  ourselves  to  files  of  the  Trumpet,  and  are  more  success 
ful.     We  find  it  as  follows:  "  Fear  less  them  which  can  tor 
ture  you,  but  have  not  the  power  lawfully  to  take  life,  than  that 
power  which  is  able  to  destroy  you  utterly  in  Gehenna"     Mr. 
W.  then  adds  :  "  Jesus  did  not  tell  his  apostles  to  fear  that  God 
would  destroy  them  utterly  in  Gehenna.     On  the  contrary,  in 
the  same  connection,  he  exhorts  them  to  have  confidence  in  God, 
and  to  have  no  fear  that  he  would  forsake  them.     They  might 
reasonably  be  afraid  of  men,  who  had  power  according  to  the 
laws,  to  destroy  them  in  Gehenna,  the  place  of  legal  punishment 
near  Jerusalem  :  but  they  were  expressly  told  not  to  be  afraid 
of  God,  in  whose  sight  they  were  precious.     At  the  time  Jesus 
uttered  these  words,  the  Jews  were  in  subjection  to  the  Romans, 
and  had  not  the  power  themselves  lawfully  to  take  life.     The 
power  of  burning   in  Gehenna,  or  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  had 
passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Jews  ;  hence  Jesus  directed  them 
to  fear  that  power  less  which  could  only  torture  them,  without 
destroying  life,  than  the  power  which  could  destroy  both  body 
and  life  in  Gehenna,  or  the  valley  of  Hinnom."     Trumpet,  No. 
678.     Here  Mr.  W.  denies  that  the  fear  of  God  is  enjoined, 
but  says  that  the  expression  "fear  him  "  refers  to  the  Roman 
power.     Mr.  Balfour  expresses  himself  as  follows  :  "  Who  then 
is  referred  to  by  the  word  him,  whom  the  disciples  were  com 
manded  to  fear  ?     God,  we  think,  is  the  being ;    and  is  desig 
nated  by  what  he  is  able  to  do,  in  the  next  words."     Inq.,  p. 
142.      So  Mr.  W.  and  Mr.  B.  are  at  variance.      Who  shall 
decide?     Again,  says  Mr.  B.,  "If  it  is  said  the  civil  magis 
trate  is  the  one  referred  to,  I  then  ask,  can  he  kill  soul  and  life, 
which  others  could  not  do?     Could  he  "  destroy  both  soul  and 
body?  "     If  so,  then  God  himself  could  do  no  more  than  this. 
But,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  destroying  both  soul  and  body 
in  Gehenna,  was  a  punishment  inflicted  by  the  civil  magistrate 
in  our  Lord's  day,  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  our  Lord  referred 
to  him."     Inq.,  p.  141.     Correct,  Mr.  Balfour.     It  is  a  mere 


240  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

assumption,  destitute  of  any  foundation  in  history,  either  sacred 
or  profane,  that  the  valley  of  Hinnom  was  a  place  for  inflicting 
punishments,  either  by  Jews  or  Romans,  in  our  Saviour's  time. 
A  writer  in  the  Trumpet  paraphrases  the  text  on  Mr.  "YV.'s 
principle,  thus :  "  And  fear  not  them  (i.  e.  the  Jews)  which 
can  only  torture  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  take  the  life ;  but 
rather  fear  him  (i.  e.  the  Roman  power)  which  is  able  to  torture 
your  body,  and  destroy  your  life  in  hell  (gehenna)."  Trumpet, 
No.  948.  The  doctrine  inculcated  by  Mr.  Whittemore,  is  this  : 
Fear  not  God,  neither  fear  the  Jews,  but  greatly  fear  the  Roman 
power  ?  But  to  destroy  the  force  of  John  5  :  28,  29,  against 
their  doctrine,  Universalists  are  under  the  necessity  of  represent 
ing  the  Jews  as  those  to  be  feared  ;  and  that  when  their  power 
should  be  broken,  great  favors  might  be  expected  of  the  Roman 
power?  (Sec.  LXXXI.)  Again,  did  our  Lord  adopt  this  blind 
method  to  inculcate  the  duty  of  fearing  men  upon  his  disci 
ples  ?  In  justice,  however,  to  Mr.  Whittemore,  we  state  that  he 
seems  to  have  abandoned  his  explanation  in  the  Trumpet ;  for 
in  his  Guide,  he  asks,  "  Does  it  say  that  God  will  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  hell?  No  :  it  says  he  is  able  to  do  so."  So 
now  God,  and  not  the  Romans,  is  the  one  referred  to.  This  dis 
crepancy  between  Mr.  W.  in  the  Trumpet,  and  Mr.  W.  in  the 
Guide,  grows  out  of  the  fact,  doubtless,  that  the  text  is  so  "  dif 
ficult  of  construction."  But  does  not  God's  ability,  here 
admitted,  teach  most  conclusively  that  there  is  a  hell  ?  Has  an 
officer  authority  to  put  a  man  into  prison,  while  there  is  no  prison 
in  existence  ?  Certainly  not.  Mr.  W.  in  the  Guide,  regards 
the  Saviour  as  merely  asserting  the  power  of  God,  and  not  his 
determination  to  punish  after  the  death  of  the  body.  The  sen 
timent  of  the  passage  then,  is  this  :  "  Be  not  afraid  of  them  that 
kill  the  body,  but  after  that  have  no  more  that  they  can  do ;  but 
I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear ;  fear  him  which  after  he 
hath  killed,  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell;  yea,  I  say  unto  you, 
fear  him,  for  he  will  never  do  it.  That  is,  fear  him  of  whom  ye 
have  nothing  to  fear  !!  There  is  nothing  to  fear ;  God  only  has 


SeO.  92.]  UNIVEESALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

the  power,  but  he  will  never  use  it.  Did  the  Saviour  utter  such 
solemn  nonsense  as  this  ?  Yet  to  this  is  Mr.  W.  driven  in  his 
war  with  God's  truth. 

But  it  is  said  by  some,  that  soul  in  the  text,  means  animal 
life.  Now  all  know  that  animal  life  dies  with  the  body,  which 
reduces  the  passage  to  this  absurdity  :  "  Fear  not  those  who  kill 
the  life,  but  cannot  kill  the  life  !  "  Did  the  Great  Teacher  mean 
this  ?  Never.  Mr.  Page,  in  his  commentary,  furnishes  no  less 
than  five  different  explanations  of  this  text,  some  of  them  as 
diverse  from  each  other  as  light  is  from  darkness,  given  by  W. 
E.  Manly,  J.  B.  Dods,  H.  Ballon,  S.  Cobb,  and  H.  Ballou, 
2d.  This  class  of  writers  seem  to  be  well  agreed  upon  one 
point,  viz  :  that  the  text  must  be  murdered ;  but  they  are  far 
from  being  satisfied  with  each  other's  manner  of  doing  it.  Their 
expositions  look  so  absurd  to  themselves,  that  they  are  constantly 
endeavoring  to  mend  each  other's  work,  and  if  possible  render 
them  more  plausible.  But  what  is  all  this  work,  but  an  evidence 
of  their  warfare  with  the  plain  and  evident  teachings  of  the  word 
of  God,  to  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  a  future  hell  ?  The  passage 
is  a  very  plain  one,  and  teaches 

1.  That  the  soul  is  immaterial — that  the  body  may  be  killed 
while  the  soul  shall  survive  uninjured. 

2.  That  there  is  such  a  place  as  hell,  into  which  soul  and  body 
may  be  cast  and  destroyed. 

3.  That  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty  the  disciples  were  not 
to  fear  men,  who  could  only  kill  the  body  ;    but  they  were  to 
fear  God,  who  is  able  to  cast  both  soul  and  body  into  hell. 

The  word  Gehenna,  which  in  this  text  is  translated  hell,  has 
been  a  subject  of  no  small  amount  of  labored  criticism.  Mr. 
Balfour  has  occupied  no  less  than  two  hundred  and  forty  pages 
of  his  Inquiry  in  his  peculiar  way,  to  show  that  the  word  in  our 
Lord's  time  was  not  used  to  signify  a  place  of  future  punish 
ment.  The  Rev.  Andrew  Royce,  in  a  valuable  little  work 
entitled  "  Universalism  a  Modern  Invention,"  has  taken  hold  of 
the  subject  with  the  hand  of  a  master.  His  manly  and  conclu- 


UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

sive  reasonings  contrast  very  strikingly  when  compared  with  the 
low  criticisms,  sophistries,  perversions,  and  appeals  to  the  preju 
dices  of  the  irreligious,  with  which  Mr.  Balfour's  book  abounds. 
Mr.  Royce  lays  down  the  following  just  rule  of  interpretation  : 

"  Words  and  phrases  are  to  be  understood  in  their  usual  and 
known  signification,  of  the  age  and  country  in  which  they  iv ere 
spoken  or  written,  unless  the  writer  or  speaker  expressly  attaches 
some  other  meaning  to  them,"  p.  15. 

The  propriety  of  this  rule  is  shown,  and  some  of  the  passages 
out  of  the  twelve  in  which  the  word  Gehenna  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament,  are  given,  and  then  the  history  of  the  word  is  pre 
sented  as  follows : 

"  Now  what  was  the  known  and  usual  signification  of  Ge 
henna  among  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Christ  ? 

"  Universalists  have  told  us  that  Gehenna  was,  in  the  days  of 
our  Saviour,  the  name  of  a  valley  near  Jerusalem,  where  the  filth 
of  the  city  was  deposited,  where  perpetual  fires  were  kept  burn 
ing,  and  where  malefactors  were  executed ;  and  that  when 
Christ  used  the  word  Gehenna,  he  had  reference  to  punishment 
inflicted  in  this  valley,  or  to  other  temporal  calamities  symbolized 
by  punishment  in  this  valley.  Almost  the  whole  of  this  state 
ment  is  false.  But  the  truth  is  this  :  The  eastern  section  of  the 
pleasant  valley  which  bounds  Jerusalem  on  the  south,  was 
anciently  called  the  Valley  of  Hinnom,  in  the  Hebrew  tongue, 
Ge  Hinnom  (Josh.  15  :  8).  In  this  valley,  more  than  seven 
hundred  years  before  Christ,  the  idolatrous  Jews  set  up  the 
image  of  the  god  Moloch,  a  horrid  idol-god  of  the  Ammonites, 
and  to  it  they  sacrificed  their  children  by  fire,  (2  Chron.  28 : 
3,)  contrary  to  the  express  command  of  God  (Lev.  18  :  21). 
About  six  hundred  and  eighty  years  before  Christ,  the  good  king 
Josiah  abolished  this  horrid  practice,  and  defiled  the  valley  of 
Hinnom.  2  Kings  23  : 10.  Henceforward  the  filth  of  the  city 
was  deposited  there,  and  fires  were  kept  burning  to  consume  it. 
This  valley  now  became  a  loathsome  place,  with  its  dead  car 
cases  perpetually  breeding  worms  ;  and  its  fires  continually  burn- 


Sec.  92.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE. 

ing,  became,  in  the  mind  of  the  Jew,  a  fit  emblem  of  that  place 
of  future  woe  into  which  the  wicked  are  cast  after  death.  After 
this  valley  began  to  be  considered  an  image  of  the  regions  of 
woe  in  another  world,  in  process  of  time,  by  an  easy  transition 
very  common  in  language,  the  Jews  began  to  call  those  regions 
themselves  Gehenna  —  a  name  derived  from  Ge  Hinnom,  the 
ancient  Hebrew  name  of  the  valley.  Probably  for  centuries 
before  Christ  came,  the  Jews  had  been  using  Gehenna  as  the 
name  of  the  place  of  future  punishment. 

"  We  assert,  then,  that  Gehenna  was  familiarly  used  by  the 
Jews  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  as  the  name  of  the  place  of 
future  punishment  —  that  this  was  its  customary  and  known  sig 
nification  at  that  time,"  pp.  18-20.  In  proof  of  this  position, 
extracts  are  furnished  from  the  Talmuds  and  Targums,  the  works 
of  Jews,  who  lived  near  the  time  of  Christ.  Mr.  Royce  says, 
"  Indeed,  I  find  no  evidence  that  Gehenna  was  used  in  any 
other  sense  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour.  I  find  no  evidence  that 
there  was  any  place  on  earth  called  Gehenna,  in  the  days  of 
Christ.  That  six  or  seven  hundred  years  before  Christ,  there 
was  a  place  near  Jerusalem,  called  in  the  Hebrew  of  that  age 
Ge  Hinnom,  is  evident  enough ;  that  the  word  Gehenna  was 
derived  from  the  words  Ge  Hinnom,  is  also  very  clear.  It  is 
quite  certain  that  the  word  Gehenna  was  used  in  the  days  of 
Christ,  as  the  name  of  the  world  of  woe.  But  I  find  no  evi 
dence  that  there  was  ever  any  place  on  earth  called  Gehenna." 
"  But  we  have  other  reasons  for  believing  that  Christ  employed 
Gehenna  to  designate  the  place  of  future  woe.  It  evidently,  in 
all  the  instances  in  which  he  uses  it,  denotes  some  kind  of  pun 
ishment.  But  where  is  the  evidence  that  men  were  punished  in 
the  valley  of  Hinnom  in  the  time  of  Christ  or  afterwards  ?  Men 
were  in  no  danger  of  punishment  in  any  Gehenna  on  earth,  yet 
our  Saviour  threatened  wicked  men  with  the  condemnation  of 
Gehenna.  Further ;  the  Gehenna  of  which  Christ  spake  was 
where  the  'fire  is  not  quenched.'  But  were  there  perpetual 
fires  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  in  the  days  of  Christ  ?  There  is 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

certainly  no  evidence  of  it.  That  fires  were  frequently  kindled 
in  this  valley,  to  devour  the  filth  deposited  there  after  it  was 
defiled  by  the  order  of  King  Josiah,  several  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  is  probable  enough ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that 
fires  were  unceasingly  burning  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  in  the 
days  of  Christ,"  pp.  23,  25.  Mr.  Royce  is  doubtless  correct ; 
for  Universalists  have  never  been  able  to  produce  evidence  that 
there  was  such  a  place  of  punishment  known  by  such  a  name  in 
the  days  of  Christ,  near  Jerusalem.  All  they  have  ever  pro 
duced  is  the  unsupported  opinions  of  some  modern  commenta 
tors.  The  reviewers  of  Mr.  R.,  it  seems  admit  that  the  Targums 
and  Talmuds  are  good  evidence  as  to  the  meaning  of  Gehenna 
at  the  time  in  which  they  were  written,  but  assert  that  most  of 
the  eminent  critics  now  agree  that  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben 
Uzziel,  from  which  most  of  the  extracts  furnished  by  Mr.  R. 
were  made,  could  not  have  been  completed  till  some  time 
between  two  and  four  hundred  years  after  Christ.  To  this  Mr. 
R.  replies,  "  This  is  not  true.  '  Most  of  the  eminent  critics' 
do  not  agree  in  any  such  thing.  Only  three  or  four  are  named, 
and  three  or  four  are  not  most  of  the  eminent  critics  on  this  sub 
ject,  as  we  proceed  to  show. 

"  1.  Prideaux  says  that  it  is  the  general  opinion,  both  among 
Jews  and  Christians,  that  this  Targum  '  is  as  ancient  as  our 
Saviour's  time,  if  not  more  ancient.'  2.  The  Jewish  historians 
positively  assert  it.  Prideaux  mentions  particularly  Zacutas, 
Gedalias,  David  Ganz,  Abraham  Levita,  and  others.  3.  Pri 
deaux,  with  the  older  critics  generally,  place  it  near  our  Saviour's 
time.  4.  Calmet,  author  of  a  '  Historical  and  Critical  Dic 
tionary  of  the  Bible,'  places  it  at  the  same  time.  5.  The 
celebrated  Orientalist  and  Biblical  critic,  Gesenius,  than  whom 
none  can  be  a  better  judge,  considers  this  Targum  as  ancient  as 
the  time  of  Christ.  6.  Home,  in  his  '  Introduction  to  the  criti 
cal  study  of  the  Scriptures,'  says  that  this  Targum  was  written 
about  fifty  years  before  Christ.  7.  Wolfius,  in  his  '  Bibliotheca 
Hebraica,'  as  quoted  by  Home,  says  that  Jonathan  flourished  a 


Sec.  92.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  245 

short  time  before  Christ.     8.  Parkhurst,  the  author  of  Hebrew 
and  Greek  Lexicon,   quotes  this  Targura  as  evidence   of  the 
meaning  of  Gehenna,  which  I  presume  he  would  not  have  done, 
had  he  not  supposed  it  nearly  as  ancient  as  our  Saviour's  time. 
0.  The  editor  of  the   *  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,' 
after  consulting,  it  should  seem,  the  various  authorities,  places 
it  about  thirty  years  before  Christ.     10.  Professor  Stuart  says, 
'  The  later  Hebrew,  the  Talmudic  and  the  Rabbinic,  was  not  so 
late,  but  that  it  preceded  the  time  when  the  New  Testament  was 
written.'     It  is  true  that  doubts  have  been  expressed  by  some  in 
relation  to   the  antiquity  of  this  Targum.     Home  says,  '  From 
the  silence  of  Origcn  and  Jerome  concerning  this  Targum,  both 
Bauer  and  Jahn  date  it  much  later  than  is  generally  admitted.'  ' 
pp.  124,  126.     In  reply  to  this,  our  author  introduces  an  argu 
ment  from  Prideaux,  showing  most  conclusively  that  the  reasons 
for  such  doubts  were  without  weight :  and  then  exposes  a  false 
hood  put  forth  by  the  editor  of  the  Trumpet,  viz  :  that  "  '  Ac 
cording  to  the  testimony  of  the  most  learned  men,  the  earliest  of 
the   Targums  brought  forward  was  not  written  till  very  many 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ.     In  regard  to  the  most  impor 
tant  of  all  —  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  —  the  most  learned  of  the 
German  critics  agree  that  it  was  not  written  till  three  or  four 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ.'     Now  this  statement 
contains  more  than  one  falsehood.     1.   *  The  most  learned  me'h ? 
do  not  testify  that  this  Targum  was  not  written  till  very  many 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  as  we  have  just  seen.     2.  The 
most  learned  of  the  German  critics  do  not  '  agree  '  that  it  was 
not  written  till  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ.     Gesenius  is  as  learned  as  any  of  them,  and  he  places  it 
before  Christ.     3.  None  of  the  German  critics  '  agree  '  that  it 
was  not  written  until  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  Christ.     Some  of  them,  it  is  true,  suppose  it  mainly  a  com 
pilation  of  earlier  Targums,  and  not  completed  till  between  one 
and   three   hundred   years  after   the  death  of  Christ."      pp. 
130,  131. 


246  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Concerning  the  use  of  the  word  Gehenna,  Justin  Martyr,  who 
wrote  about  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  John,  says,  "  Gehenna 
is  the  place  in  which  those  are  punished  who  lead  unrighteous 
lives,  and  disbelieve  what  God  has  declared  by  Christ."     Justin 
had  the  advantage  of  instruction  from  those  who  had  conversed 
with  the  apostles,  and  doubtless  learned  the  sense  of  Gehenna 
from  that  source.     "  It  may  be  further  remarked  that  it  is  obvi 
ous  that  Gehenna,  in  the  language  of  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's 
time,  was  the  name  of  the  place  of  future  punishment,  from  the 
fact  that  there  is  not  the  least  evidence  that  they  had  any  other 
name  for  this  place.     The  reader  should  be  careful  not  to  con 
found  Gehenna  with  Hades.     Hades  was  understood  to  be  the 
world  of  spirits  generally,  in  which  were  both  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  ;  but  Gehenna  was  the  place  of  future  punishment, 
as  Paradise  was  the  place  of  future  bliss.     That  the  Jews  be 
lieved  in  a  place  of  future  punishment,  none  deny.     By  what 
name,  then,  did  they  call  it  ?     Wherever  the  word  is  found  in 
ancient  writings,  unless  we  except  the  New  Testament,  it  uni 
formly  stands  for  the  place  of  future  woe.     The  presumption, 
therefore,  is  certainly  very  strong  that  this  was  its  exclusive 
meaning.     If,  then,  Universalists  deny  that  this  word  signified 
the  place  of  future  punishment  among  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's 
day,  it  rightfully  devolves  upon  them  to  show  by  what  name 
they  did  call  this  place ;  or,  if  they  had  no  name,  by  what  cir 
cumlocution  they  expressed  it.     Besides,  it  is  incredible  if  the 
Jews  of  Judea  had  another  name  for  the  world  of  woe,  that  it 
should   not   have   appeared   in  the    New  Testament.      If  our 
Saviour  had  believed  in  such  a  place,  he  would  of  course  have 
spoken  of  it  under  the  name  which  it  bore  with  his  countrymen. 
If  he  did  not  believe  in  such  a  place,  he  would  have  used  the 
name  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  the  doctrine."  pp.  130,  133. 

The  word  Gehenna  does  not  occur  in  Josephus,  Philo,  or  the 
Apocrypha.  To  this  Mr.  K.  replies,  "  The  reason  why  this 
word  does  not  occur  in  Josephus,  shall  be  given  in  the  words  of 
Hosea  Ballou,  2d.  '  He  sought  to  avoid  the  Hebraisms  and 


Sec.   92.]  TJNIYERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  247 

peculiar  phrases  of  the  Jews,  and  to  attain  the  classic  purity  of 
the  Greek  and  Roman  style.'  Gehenna  was  a  word  originating 
and  used  only,  in  the  language  of  Judea  of  our  Saviour's  time, 
which  is  the  reason  why  it  does  not  occur  in  Philo  or  the  Apoc 
rypha,  all  of  which  were  written  in  Alexandria,  and  in  the 
Greek.  Mr.  Whittemore,  with  his  characteristic  candor,  says, 
'  If  this  word  signifies  the  place  of  endless  misery,  how  does  it 
happen  that  all  the  apostles  preserved  so  entire  a  silence  in 
regard  to  it  ?  Let  Mr.  Royce  answer  this,  if  he  thinks  it  safe 
to  attempt  it ! '  I  think  it  entirely  '  safe  '  to  say  that  if  Gehenna 
is  mentioned  ten  or  twelve  times  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
sense  of  future  punishment,  the  doctrine  is  established,  and  not 
the  less  established  because  it  is  not  mentioned  one  hundred 
times  more.  I  think  it  '  safe  '  also  to  say  that,  since  Gehenna 
is  a  word  of  the  dialect  of  Judea  of  our  Saviour's  time,  in  writ 
ing  to  people  out  of  Judea,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  the 
apostles  would  not  have  been  likely  to  have  often  used  the  word 
Gehenna,  for  to  such  a  people  it  would  have  conveyed  no  defi 
nite  idea.  They  could,  as  they  have  already  done,  teach  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment  without  naming  the  place  of  such 
punishment."  pp.  138,  139.  Following  up  his  opponents,  Mr. 
R.  says,  "  Our  Vermont  reviewer,  following  Mr.  Balfour,  con 
tends  that  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  Gehenna 
is  found,  have  exclusive  reference  to  temporal  calamities.  This 
he  infers  from  several  propositions  which  he  assumes  to  be  true. 
These  will  be  first  examined.  1.  Be  says,  '  This  (Gehenna) 
is  a  Hebrew  or  Old  Testament  word.'  This  is  not  true.  This 
word  does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament,  or  in  any 
translation  of  it.  The  words  of  which  it  is  compounded  are 
there,  but  Gehenna  is  not  there.  2.  '  Its  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament  must  be  learned  from  the  Old.'  This  is  not  true. 
If  this  word  were  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  does  not  cer 
tainly  follow  that  it  has  the  same  meaning  in  the  New.  Para 
dise  is  found  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  (Neh. 
2:8;  Cant.  4:13;  Ecc.  2  :  5,)  and  always  as  the  name  of 


248  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

a  place  in  another  world.  As  many,  and  just  about  the  same 
arguments  may  be  adduced  to  prove  that  Paradise  does  not  mean 
a  place  of  bliss,  as  that  Gehenna  does  not  mean  hell.  3.  He 
adds  :  '  The  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  use  this  term  to  sig 
nify,  1st,  a  valley  near  Jerusulem ;  and,  2d,  in  a  figurative  or 
emblematic  sense,  to  describe  the  temporal  miseries  which  God 
was  to  bring  on  the  Jews  for  their  sins.'  Neither  of  these  asser 
tions  is  true.  The  writers  of  the  Old  Testamant,  as  we  have 
seen,  do  not  use  the  word  at  all ;  and  they  never  used  Valley 
of  Hinnom,  from  which  this  word  is  derived,  in  a  '  figurative  or 
emblematical  sense.'  I  know  that  Mr.  Balfour  asserts  this,  but 
it  is  only  his  assertion,  as  we  shall  see.  The  passages  referred 
to,  as  instances  of  the  use  of  the  term  Valley  of  Hinnom  in  this 
figurative  sense,  are  in  the  7th  and  19th  chapters  of  Jeremiah. 
They  are  the  following  :  '  And  they  have  built  the  high  places 
of  Tophet,  which  is  in  the  Valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  to  burn 
their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire  ;  which  I  commanded 
them  not,  neither  came  it  into  my  heart.  Therefore,  behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  it  shall  no  more  be  called  Tophet, 
nor  the  Valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  but  the  Valley  of  Slaugh 
ter  ;  for  they  shall  bury  in  Tophet  till  there  be  no  place.'  Jer. 
7  :  31,  32.  '  They  have  built  also  the  high  places  of  Baal,  to 
burn  their  sons  with  fire,  for  burnt  offerings  unto  Baal,  which  I 
commanded  them  not.  Therefore,  behold  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  this  place  shall  no  more  be  called  Tophet,  nor  the 
Valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  but  the  Valley  of  Slaughter,  and 
I  will  make  void  the  counsel  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  this 
place,  and  I  will  cause  them  to  fall  by  the  sword  before  their 
enemies.'  Jer.  19  :  5,  6,  7.  Are  the  words  Valley  of  the  son 
of  Hinnom  used  figuratively  here?  Are  they  in  the  least 
turned  from  their  literal  meaning  ?  Every  intelligent  child 
should  know  better.  I  should  have  been  pleased  if  our  reviewer 
had  informed  us  precisely  what  figure  is  used  here.  It  must  be 
readily  discerned  by  every  reader  of  these  passages,  that  Tophet, 
or  Valley  of  Hinnom,  is  mentioned  by  the  prophet  simply  as  the 


SeC.  92.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  249 

place  in  which  the  Jews  had  been  guilty  of  idolatry,  and  in 
which  their  dead  bodies  should  be  buried  in  multitudes,  when 
God,  for  their  iniquities,  should  send  them  upon  their  enemies  ; 
and  that,  on  account  of  this,  it  was  to  be  called  the  Valley  of 
Slaughter.  It  was  a  literal  prediction,  and  was  exactly  and  lit 
erally  accomplished  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  In  proof,  read 
Lamentations. 

"  Thus  we  perceive  that  every  one  of  this  reviewer's  three  or 
four  propositions  are  totally  untrue.  They  are  mere  naked  asser 
tions.  He  does  not  attempt  to  prove  one  of  them  true.  And 
yet,  precisely  such,  and  no  better,  is  the  foundation  of  all  the 
various  interpretations  which  the  Universalists  have  given  of 
those  passages  in  which  Gehenna  is  found. 

"  The  absurdity  of  his  argument  will  be  fully  seen  by  laying 
it  out  in  full  view.  '  Hence ,'  he  says,  (that  is,  from  the  pre 
ceding  falsehoods,)  'Hence,  when  Christ  used  Gehenna,  speaking 
in  the  idiom  of  the  Jewish  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  he 
signified  by  it,  first,  punishments  in  the  literal  valley  of  Hinnom  ; 
or  second,  temporal  judgments  coming  on  the  Jews,  symbolized 
by  the  valley  and  everything  connected  with  it.'  Accordingly, 
the  passage  which  reads  thus  :  '  And  if  thy  hand  offend  thee, 
cut  it  off;  it  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  than 
having  two  hands  to  go  into  Gehenna,  into  the  fire  that  never 
shall  be  quenched,'  (Mark  9  :  43,)  is  interpreted  to  mean  thus  : 
'  It  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  life  or  enjoyment  of  the 
gospel,  or  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom  in  this  world,  feeling  as  if 
thou  hadst  made  a  sacrifice  of  interests  as  dear  as  a  hand,  an  eye, 
or  a  foot,  than  remain  out  of  the  gospel  kingdom  in  possession  of 
these  interests,  and  fall  under  the  dreadful  judgments  coming  on 
the  Jews  who  reject  Christ,  which  are  symbolized  by  Gehenna ; 
for  the  fire  of  those  divine  judgments  shall  not  be  quenched  or 
stayed  in  its  progress,  but  shall  effectually  destroy  the  Jewish 
people.'  Now  strip  this  argument  of  all  its  sophistry,  and  it 
stands  thus  :  Christ's  words  which  plainly  say  one  thing,  must 
be  interpreted  to  mean  another  and  a  totally  different  thing ; 
13 


250  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

because  more  than  five  hundred  years  before  Christ,  dreadful 
calamities  were  visited  upon  the  Jews  for  their  idolatry,  in  exact 
fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  Jeremiah.  What  can  be  more 
absurd  than  this  !  For,  as  we  have  seen,  the  calamities  in  which 
the  Jews  were  involved  when  their  country  was  depopulated, 
and  themselves  dragged  into  captivity,  five  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  or  the  language  of  Jeremiah  by  which  these  events  were 
foretold,  have  no  more  connection  with  the  language  of  Christ  in 
which  Gehenna  is  found,  than  has  the  calamity  of  Noah's  flood. 
Nor  does  it  appear  from  the  subject  or  connection,  that  he  had 
any  more  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  than  to  the 
destruction  of  Lisbon. 

"  If  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  mentioned  by  Jeremiah,  had  been 
in  his  day  a  place  in  which  dreadful  punishments  were  inflicted ; 
if  he  had  actually  used  it  figuratively,  to  signify  temporal  mis 
eries  coming  on  the  Jews  as  a  people  ;  if  Jesus  Christ  had  used 
the  same  words,  in  a  similar  connection,  and  in  reference  to  a 
similar  subject ;  there  might  have  been  some  foundation  for 
the  above  argument.  But  such  are  not  the  facts.  Jere 
miah  spoke  of  Ge  Ben  Hinnom,  our  Saviour  of  Gehenna. 
Jeremiah  spoke  of  national  sins,  and  explicitly  and  lit 
erally  predicts  national  punishments.  Jesus  Christ  spoke  of 
individual  sins,  and  makes  no  allusion  to  the  time,  place,  or  cir 
cumstances  of  temporal  punishment.  In  short,  there  is  no  more 
connection  between  the  events  indicated  in  these  respective  pas 
sages,  than  between  any  two  events  whatever."  pp.  139-144. 

By  these  extracts  from  Mr.  Royce,  the  reader  will  see  the 
sophistry  and  perversion  of  Universalists  upon  the  word  Ge 
henna.  If  anything  more  were  necessary  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  the  figurative  interpretations  of  those  passages  where  the  word 
occurs  which  Universalists  contend  for,  it  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  they  are  not  at  all  agreed  among  themselves  with  regard  to 
their  meaning,  as  we  have  before  stated  in  this  section. 

The  places  where  the  word  occurs  in  the  Bible  are  as  follows  : 
Matt.  5  :  22,  29,  30 ;  10  :  28  ;  18:9;  23  :  15,  33  ;  Mark  9  : 
!3,  45,  47  ;  Luke  12  :  5  ;  James  3  :  6. 


Sec.  93.]  UNIVEHSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  251 

Mr.  Witherell,  who  it  seems  stands  high  in  the  order  as  an 
expositor  of  Universalist  doctrines,  speaking  of  Gehenna,  says : 
"  I  am  aware  that  it  is  contended  that  this  word  came  by 
degrees  to  be  used  to  signify  a  place  of  punishment.  Well, 
because  a  majority  of  professing  Christians  have  come,  by 
degrees,  to  believe  that  the  word  Gehenna  signifies  a  place  of 
endless  punishment,  is  that  any  proof  that  the  sacred  writers 
used  it  to  express  such  an  idea  ?  No.  We  are  not  to  judge  of 
the  meaning  of  words,  by  what  they  have  come  by  degrees  to 
signify ;  but  we  should  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  idea  the 
writer  meant  to  convey  by  them."  pp.  20,  21. 

Here  we  have  a  sample  of  the  false  issues  so  common  with 
this  class  of  writers  ;  and  in  this  case  it  discovers  either  an  unin 
formed  head  or  a  bad  heart,  either  of  which  is  not  very  creditable 
to  those  editors  and  ministers  who  have  so  "  cordially  appro 
bated"  his  work.  (Sec.  IV.)  We  fearlessly  assert  that  no 
author  who  is  a  believer  in  future  punishment,  ever  put  forth 
the  sentiment,  that  "Christians  have  come,  by  degrees,  to 
believe  that  Gehenna  signifies  a  place  of  endless  punishment." 
This  is  a  "  false  fact,"  created  to  serve  the  cause  of  error.  The 
truth  is  this,  as  has  been  shown :  Gehenna  was  in  use  among 
the  Jews  of  our  'Saviour's  time,  to  designate  the  place  of  future 
punishment,  and  the  Saviour  used  it  in  the  same  sense.  This 
is  what  Mr.  Royce  and  others  have  asserted  and  proved,  and  not 
that  "  Christians  have  come,  by  degrees,"  &c. 

XCIII.  "Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast,"  &c. 
Eph.  2  :  9,  10. 

When  Christian  ministers  have  urged  the  importance  of  repent 
ance,  faith,  and  holiness  here,  in  order  to  heaven  hereafter, 
Universalists  have  denied  that  these  are  at  all  necessary  in  order 
to  secure  future  bliss,  and  a  crafty  use  is  sometimes  made  of 
this  text  to  serve  their  purpose.  The  following  is  an  illustra 
tion  :  "  Immortal  happiness  is  the  free,  unpurchased  gift  of 
God,  and  every  person  must  receive  it  as  such  ;  for  it  is  '  not  of 


252  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

works,  lost  any  man  should  boast.'"  Witherett,  p.  28.  Ac 
cording  to  this  writer,  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  salvation  in  the 
immortal  state.  Will  he  abide  his  own  construction  ?  Then  is 
the  immortal  salvation  conditioned  upon  faith,  as  may  be  seen 
by  the  context,  which  reads  thus  :  "  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved 
through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 
Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast."  v.  9,  10.  If  the 
salvation  of  the  text  is  in  the  immortal  state,  then  is  future  sal 
vation  secured  "  through  faith,"  which  contradicts  modern 
Universalism.  But  if  only  present  salvation  is  intended,  then 
we  have  but  another  instance  of  gross  perversion  ;  for  the  apostle 
is  made  to  say,  by  this  writer,  that  immortal  happiness  is  not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast,  when  the  passage  asserts  no 
such  thing.  Christians  never  assume  that  either  present  or 
future  salvation  is  merited  by  their  works,  They  are  often 
grossly  misrepresented  by  Universalists  upon  this  point.  There 
is  a  vast  difference  between  meriting  salvation  by  works,  and 
using  the  means  which  God  has  ordained  to  secure  the  salvation 
which  he  freely  gives.  The  latter,  true  Christians  do  while  they 
acknowledge  that  it  is  all  of  grace. 

XCIV.  "  There  was  a  certain  rich  man,  which  was  clothed 
in  purple  and  fine  linen,'''  &c.  Luke  16  : 19-31. 

This  portion  of  Holy  Writ  has  proved  a  great  source  of 
trouble  to  modern  Universalists,  and  volumes  have  been  written 
by  them  to  put  out  the  light  here  shed  upon  the  future  destiny 
of  man.  With  them,  this  is  a  parable.  To  prove  this,  and  that 
the  cutting  off  the  Jews  from  gospel  privileges,  and  the  exalta 
tion  of  the  Gentiles  to  these  privileges  is  intended,  Mr.  Eayncr 
has  put  forth  a  book  of  nine  lectures  !  It  is  not  the  design  to 
enter  into  a  lengthy  refutation  of  this  view,  but  only  to  give  the 
reader  a  clue  to  the  perversion  of  this  scripture  in  their  hands. 

Says  Mr.  Whittemore,  "  By  the  death  of  the  two  individuals 
is  intended  the  change  which  was  then  about  to  take  place  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  Jews  were  soon 


SeC.  94.]  TJNIVfiRSALISM    NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  253 

to  be  deprived  of  their  national  privileges,  because  they  had  not 
made  a  good  use  of  them,  and  were  to  be  cast  into  outer  dark 
ness,  and  suffer  the  most  tremendous  evils  that  had  ever  befallen 
any  nation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Gentiles  were  to  experience 
a  change  equally  great.  They  were  to  be  brought  to  a  knowl 
edge  of  God,  and  of  that  gospel  which  was  preached,  originally, 
to  Abraham."  Notes  on  P.,  p.  235. 

"  In  the  history,  as  recorded  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  both 
the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  died.  But,  if  the  interpretation  of 
Universalists  be  true,  only  one  died  —  the  beggar  was  already 
dead.  And  when  the  rich  man  died,  by  losing  his  spiritual 
advantages,  the  beggar  by  obtaining  them,  of  course  came  to  life. 
In  the  room  of  placing  the  rich  man  in  hell,  and  sending  Laz 
arus  into  Abraham's  bosom,  the  Saviour,  on  the  ground  of 
Universalism,  would  have  placed  the  beggar  in  the  rich  man's 
house,  adding  to  his  splendor  and  his  sumptuous  fare,  and  then 
placed  the  rich  man  at  the  gate,  to  beg  a  few  crumbs  from  Laza 
rus'  table.  Such  was  actually  the  change  which  took  place,  if 
the  death  of  the  rich  man  was  the  loss  of  his  spiritual  privileges, 
and  the  death  of  the  beggar  was  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
to  the  faith  of  Abraham."  Smith,  p.  103.  There  would  be  a 
shadow  of  plausibility  in  the  Universalist  interpretation,  if  the 
rich  man  only  was  represented  as  dying.  But  how  the  exalta 
tion  of  the  Gentiles  to  gospel  privileges  can  be  considered  a  death, 
requires  a  Universalist  to  understand ;  for,  on  their  ground,  the 
Gentiles  died  as  well  as  the  Jews. 

Again  :  "  There  was  a  certain  beggar  named  Lazarus,  (Gen 
tiles,)  which  was  laid  at  his  gate  full  of  sores ;  and  he  desired  to 
be  fed  with  the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  (Jews) 
table."  v.  20,  21.  So  the  Gentiles  were  begging  of  the  Jews. 
Now  when  we  consider  the  dependent  relation  the  Jews  held  to 
the  Romans,  we  can  scarce  conceive  of  anything  more  absurd 
than  the  idea  that  the  Saviour  is  representing  the  Gentiles  as 
begging  of  the  Jews,  and  desjring  to  be  fed  with  crumbs  which 
fell  from  their  table.  What  favors  have  the  Gentiles  asked  o^ 


254  UNIVEKSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  Jews,  either  political  or  religious  ?  The  rich  man  (Jews) 
says,  "  Father  Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me,  and  send  Lazarus, 
(Gentiles,)  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water  and 
cool  my  tongue."  "  This,  as  Universalists  teach,  signifies  the 
great  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  to  be  blessed  with  the  gos 
pel  by  the  means  of  the  Gentiles.  But  in  what  age  have  they 
expressed  such  a  desire  ?  They  have  never  acknowledged,  up 
to  this  hour,  that  the  Gentiles  have  the  faith  of  Abraham.  They 
have  never  solicited  instruction  from  them,  nor  desired  the  con 
solations  which  the  Gentiles  enjoy."  Smith,  p.  103. 

"  Between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed  ;  so  that  they 
which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot ;  neither  can  they 
pass  to  us  that  would  come  from  thence."  v.  26. 

If  the  rich  man  in  torments  represents  the  Jews  cast  off  from 
gospel  privileges,  and  if  Lazarus  in  Abraham's  bosom  represents 
the  Gentiles  in  possession  of  them,  as  Universalists  assert,  then 
it  follows  that  if  a  Jew  "would  pass"  over  and  become  a 
Christian,  he  cannot,  neither  can  a  Christian  embrace  Judaism 
if  he  "would"  But  is  there  any  such  impassable  gulf  or 
decree  that  Jews  cannot  become  Christians  if  they  will,  or  Chris 
tians  become  Jews?  This  interpretation  makes  the  Saviour 
mock  the  Jews  in  sending  the  gospel  to  them  ;  and  how  foolish 
was  Paul,  laboring  and  weeping  over  them  to  convert  them  to 
Christianity.  This  nonsensical  and  absurd  explanation  is  con 
tradicted  by  the  fact  that  some  have  apostatized  to  Judaism  from 
Christianity,  and  also  by  the  fact  that  thousands  of  Jews  have 
become  Christians. 

The  rich  man  (Jewish  nation)  had  five  brethren  he  was 
desirous  should  be  warned,  that  they  might  shun  the  torment  he 
was  then  enduring.  Query.  Were  there  five  other  Jewish 
nations  in  danger  of  being  cast  off  from  gospel  privileges?  Who 
were  the  V  five  brethren  ?  "  Echo  returns,  who  ? 

In  noticing  these  points,  we  are  complained  of  by  Universal 
ists  for  making  too  much  of  circumstances  connected  with  this 
account ;  for  these,  it  is  said,  are  not  to  be  brought  against  the 


Sec.  94.]     UNIVERSALISM  NOT  OF  THE  BIBLE.          255 

"  main  design."  But  Mr.  Ballon,  the  father  of  modern  Uni- 
versalism,  has  noticed  the  circumstances  very  minutely,  and  has 
stated  their  meaning  in  his  peculiar  way,  (Notes,  p.  252—256,) 
and  Mr.  Rayner  and  others  have  turned  the  circumstances  against 
the  sense  given  to  the  passage  by  evangelical  Christians,  with 
all  the  art  they  are  capable  of.  Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
deny  its  future  reference,  because  of  the  circumstance  of  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus  represented  as  having  eyes,  finger,  and 
tongue,  and  thus  placing  themselves  by  the  side  of  atheists,  who 
reject  the  God  of  the  Bible,  who  is  pure  spirit,  because  he  is  said 
to  have  eyes,  ears,  mouth,  arm,  &c.  Such  seem  not  to  under 
stand  that  things  spiritual  and  eternal  are  represented  to  us  in 
this  world  by  visible  and  material  objects.  This  faulting  us  for 
meddling  with  the  circumstances,  arises  from  the  fact  that  they 
are  all  against  them.  But  the  circumstances  involve  no  more 
difficulty  than  their  "  main  design."  With  them,  the  Saviour's 
main  design  was  to  illustrate  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to 
gospel  privileges,  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  But  where  da 
they  learn  this  ?  Has  Heaven  given  them  a  special  revelation 
upon  this  point?  Surely  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  or  its 
connection,  that  in  the  least  indicates  it.  No  common  reader  of 
the  Bible  would  receive  even  a  hint  of  it  there.  It  is  unnatural 
and  false,  manufactured  to  get  rid  of  the  solemn  import  of  the 
passage. 

The  main  design  of  the  Saviour  appears  to  have  been  to  pre 
sent  the  difference  in  the  future  world  between  a  wicked  rich" 
man  and  a  righteous  poor  man.  In  proof  we  submit  the  fol 
lowing  : 

In  the  context  the  Saviour  was  discoursing,  not  about  giving 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  or  rejecting  the  Jews,  but  on  the  sub 
ject  of  avarice.  He  told  the  Jews  that  they  could  not  serve  God 
and  Mammon,  rebuked  them  for  their  worldliness  and  self- 
righteousness ;  and  "the  Pharisees  also,  who  were  covetous, 
heard  all  these  things,  and  derided  him."  Ver.  14.  He  then 
introduced  the  subject  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  instructing 


256  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

them  that  their  state  in  hades,  if  they  were  covetous  and  served 
Mammon  rather  than  God,  would  be  one  of  torment,  notwith 
standing  their  wealth,  while  the  righteous  poor  would  enjoy 
bliss.  This  is  natural  and  easy,  and  applies  with  force  to  the 
subject.  Another  consideration  which  goes  to  give  it  a  future 
state  reference,  is  the  belief  of  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed. 
Says  Mr.  Balfour  upon  this  passage,  "  Our  Lord  was  reasoning 
with  the  Pharisees,  who  believed  the  popular  opinion,  that  in 
hades  there  was  a  place  of  torment."  Inq.,  p.  83. 

This  being  the  fact,  how,  we  ask,  must  they  have  understood 
him?  This  is  a  parable,  say  Universalists.  Admitting  this, 
what  is  gained  to  their  cause  ?  Just  nothing  ;  for  parables  are 
founded  on  facts  and  not  on  fiction.  Examine  every  one  of  the 
Saviour's  parables  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  will  prove  true 
in  every  instance,  unless  this  must  be  considered  an  exception. 
Take  the  following : 

"  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  leaven,  which  a  woman 
took,  and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal,  till  the  whole  was 
leavened."  Matt.  13:33.  Now  this  is  founded  not  upon  fic 
tion,  but  fact.  "Women,  leaven,  meal,  are  all  real  things,  and 
not  fictitious.  And  then  there  was  such  a  practice  common  as  is 
here  stated,  viz.,  for  women  to  put  leaven  into  meal.  If  there 
were  no  women,  no  leaven,  no  meal,  and  if  women  never  put 
leaven  into  meal,  then  this  parable  would  be  lame  and  forceless. 
If  we  should  admit  that  Christ  intended  to  illustrate  the  giving 
of  the  gospel  to  the  Grentilcs,  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  by 
this,  what  would  follow  ?  It  would  follow  that  this,  like  other 
parables  of  the  Saviour,  is  founded  upon  acknowledged  facts. 
Among  other  facts,  the  following  are  recognized,  whatever  the 
scope  or  design  intended,  viz.,  that  there  are  such  men  as  rich 
men  and  beggars,  and  that  some  of  the  former  fare  sumptuously 
and  are  clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  while  some  poor  beg 
gars  lie  at  their  gates  covered  with  sores ;  that  there  are  such 
animals  as  dogs,  such  a  thing  as  death,  such  beings  as  angels, 
and  such  a  place  as  hell,  (hades,)  where  departed  souls  are  tor- 


Sec.  94.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  257 

merited.  Now  if  these  are  not  facts,  then  has  the  Saviour 
founded  one  parable  upon  fiction  ;  and  that,  too,  without  disabus 
ing  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  who  were  laboring  under  the  belief 
of  this  fiction.  Would  a  Universalist  minister  in  our  day  base  a 
parable  upon  torments  in  the  future  state,  without  first  informing 
the  people  that  it  was  all  fictijon  ?  So  far  from  this  are  they, 
that  they  spend  much  of  their  time  in  efforts  against  the  doc 
trine,  in  holding  it  up  as  the  greatest  of  errors.  But  in  no  sin 
gle  instance  do  we  find  the  Saviour,  or  any  of  his  apostles,  so 
employed,  notwithstanding  they  passed  their  days  on  earth  in  the 
midst  of  those  who  believed  and  taught  the  doctrine.  Com 
pared  with  moderns  they  were  very  inefficient  Universalist  min 
isters  !  (Sec.  CXXXII.) 

The  truth  is,  Christ  has  shown  us  here,  in  terms  that  few  un 
godly  men  can  contemplate  and  be  at  ease,  that  there  is  a  world 
of  woe.  He  has  raised  the  curtain  that  intervenes  between  that 
dark  world  and  this,  and  exhibited  to  us  hew  fearful  a  thing 
it  is  to  be  lost.  He  teaches  us  that  our  destiny  is  fixed  at  death, 
and  that  if  sinners  will  not  yield  to  the  persuasions  and  heed  the 
warnings  they  have  in  this  world  to  escape  the  "  place  of  tor 
ment  "  by  the  means  which  God  has  provided,  none  others  will 
be  employed,  neither  would  it  avail  anything  in  their  case  should 
one  be  sent  from  the  dead. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  rich 
man  was  bad,  or  that  Lazarus  was  good.  That  the  rich  man 
was  wicked,  and  the  poor  man  good,  is  implied  through  the 
whole  passage.  Indeed,  what  of  force  there  is  in  this,  lies  with 
all  its  weight  against  applying  it  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The 
rich  man,  with  Universalists,  is  the  Jewish  people,  who  are  to 
be  cast  down  and  punished  for  their  wickedness.  The  rich  man 
is  a  type  of  this  wicked  nation.  Was  he  good  or  bad?  No 
more  need  be  said. 
13* 


258  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    TIIE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

XCV.  "  For  therefore  we  loth  labor  and  suffer  reproach, 
because  ice  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men,  especially  of  those  that  believe"  1  Tim.  4  :  10. 

That  the  reader  may  have  a  fair  sample  of  the  perversion  of 
this  text,  -we  present  the  following  extract : 

"And  it  is  no  less  true  than  strange,  that  the  apostles  were 
persecuted  for  preaching  this  same  doctrine  of  universal  salva 
tion.  Will  the  reader  take  Paul's  word  for  the  truth  of  this  ? 
Hear  him :  '  This  is  a  faithful  saying  and  worthy  of  all  accep 
tation,  for  therefore  we  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach,  because 
we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  es 
pecially  of  those  that  believe.'  Now  God  is  the  Saviour  of  no 
more  than  he  saves,  and  hence,  if  Paul  can  be  credited  as  to  the 
cause  of  his  labor  and  reproach,  it  was  for  believing  and  preach 
ing  the  salvation  of  all  men."  Trumpet,  No.  805. 

Universalists  would  render  this  passage  subservient  to  their 
cause  in  two  ways  : 

1.  .By  assuming  that  the  apostles  suffered  reproach  for  preach 
ing   Univcrsalism ;  than   which,  nothing   can    be    more    false. 
Whatever  was  the  nature  of,  or  however  extensive,  the  salvation, 
it  was  not  for  preaching  it,  that  they  suffered  reproach ;  but  it 
was  for  trusting  in  the  living  God,  as  all  must  see,  who  will 
give  a  moment's  attention  to  the  language.     The  phrase,   "  liv 
ing   God,  is  applied  in  the  scriptures  to  the  true  God,  to  distin 
guish  him  from  the  dead  gods  of  the  heathen.     1  Thess.  1  :9. 
Paul,  Timothy,  and  others,  preached  him,  and  exposed  the  folly 
of   those    who    worshipped    idols.     Acts   17  :  16-30.      Their 
work  was  a  crusade  against  idolatry,  and  for  this  they  suffered 
reproach. 

2.  Universalists  assume  from  this  text,  that  all  men  will  be 
holy  and  happy  in  the  future  state.     But  has  Paul  said  any 
such   thing  in  the  passage  ?     Let   us  see.     That  God  is  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  we  firmly  believe. 

1.  He  is  the  providential  Saviour  of  all  men  living.  Acts 
17  : 28. 


Sec.  95.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


259 


2.  He  is  the  gracious  Saviour  of  all  men.     John  1:9;  Tit. 
2:11,  12. 

See,  also,  Sec.  XXIX.,  where  Rom.  5  :  18,  19  is  examined. 
Universalists  hold  that  all  men  will  be  saved  in  the  future 
state  by  the  resurrection.  Speaking  of  the  common  salvation 
named  in  this  passage,  Mr.  Williamson  says  :  "  Well,  then,  if 
man's  resurrection  from  the  dead  depends  upon  God  alone,  and 
no  human  power  can  effect  it,  so  must  the  state  and  condition  of 
man  depend  equally  upon  God,  and  be  equally  beyond  the  reach 
of  human  agency."  ' '  The  truth  is,  that  man  can  by  his  faith  and 
works  do  something  towards  ameliorating  his  condition  here  ;  but 
he  cannot  procure  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  if  he  can 
not  procure  the  thing  itself,  much  less  can  he  procure  any  modi 
fications  of  it.  All  that  man  is,  and  all  that  he  can  be  in  the 
resurrection,  he  must  owe  to  God  alone  ;  his  feeble  work  cannot 
reach  one  line  beyond  the  grave."  After  speaking  of  what  is 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  resurrection,  he  adds  :  "  This  is  the 
salvation  which  God  has  prepared  for  a  world,  and  in  this  sense 
God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men."  Expo,  and  Def.  of  17.,  pp. 
167-169. 

Mr.  Whittemore  says :  "  This  heavenly  image  which  we  lost, 
we  obtain  back  again  at  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  "  They 
will  be  children  of  God,  bearing  a  moral  likeness  to  him.  This 
will  be  the  state  of  all  who  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead." 
Guide,  pp.  37  and  44. 

Reader,  can  you  believe  that  the  apostle,  in  the  text  under 
consideration.,  meant  to  say,  that  God  will  become  the  Saviour  of 
all  men  in  the  resurrection  state,  especially  in  the  present  life,  of 
those  that  believe  ?  This  you  must  believe,  if  you  receive  the 
construction  Universalists  put  upon  the  apostle's  words.  They 
refer  one  branch  of  it  to  the  future  state,  and  the  other  to  the 
present  life,  which  is  wholly  unauthorized.  They  tell  us  that 
the  special  salvation  pertains  to  this  life,  and  the  common  to  the 
future.  Now  if  we  receive  it  as  true  that  God  will  become  the 
Saviour  of  all  men  in  the  future  state,  while  he  is  the  special 


260  UNIVERSALISM    NOT  OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Saviour  of  those  that  believe  in  this  life,  then  is  the  salvation  of 
this  life  greater  and  more  glorious  than  the  salvation  of  heaven ; 
for  God  is  the  Saviour  especially  of  those  that  believe,  i.  e.,  he 
is  their  Saviour  in  a  higher  sense  than  he  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men.  None  will  deny  but  the  Bible  represents  the  salvation  of 
the  heavenly  state  as  infinitely -greater  than  the  salvation  of  be 
lievers  in  this  life,  however  holy  they  may  be.  But  Universal- 
ists,  by  referring  one  part  of  this  text  to  the  future,  and  the 
other  to  the  present  life,  have  made  the  heavenly  salvation  the 
lesser,  or  common,  while  the  greater,  or  special  salvation,  is  in 
this  world  !  We  ask,  by  what  authority  do  Universalists  take 
their  dissecting  knife,  and  cut  this  text  into  two  portions ;  re 
ferring  a  part  to  the  future  state,  and  a  part  to  this  world  ?  The 
most  superficial  thinker  upon  the  subject  will  see,  that  it  either 
wholly  refers  to  this  world,  or  else  it  wholly  refers  to  the  future. 
"We  deny  the  future  state  reference  of  any  part  of  it.  The 
apostle  was  speaking  of  what  then  existed.  He  first  states  that 
he  and  his  brethren  suffer  reproach,  for  trusting  "  in  the  living 
God."  He  then  states  that  God  IS  (not  will  be,  in  the  res 
urrection),  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  those  that 
believe. 

It  is  true,  that  those  who  experience  this  special  salvation 
through  faith,  if  they  continue  in  the  faith,  will  be  saved  in  the 
future  world ;  for  Paul,  in  view  of  death,  could  say,  (2  Tim. 
4  :  7,  8)  :  "I  have  kept  the  faith  ;  henceforth  there  is  laid  up 
for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,"  &c. 

Mr.  Williamson,  speaking  of  the  word  "especially"  says: 
"  The  idea  is,  that  this  word  limits  the  salvation  of  God  to  be 
lievers  alone.  Now  Paul  wrote  to  Timothy  saying  :  '  The 
cloak  that  I  left  with  thee  at  Troas,  bring  with  thee  when  thou 
comest,  and  the  books,  but  especially  the  parchment.'  There 
is  precisely  as  much  reason  in  saying,  that  Paul  did  not  want  the 
cloak  and  books,  because  he  said  '  especially '  the  parchment, 
as  there  is  in  saying,  that  God  is  not  the  Saviour  of  any  but  be 
lievers,  because  the  text  says  especially  of  them  that  believe ; 


Sec.  95.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE    BIBLE.  261 

and  if  I  tell  you  that  Paul  wanted  both  the  cloak  and  books, 
you  ought  to  object  at  once,  and  remind  me  that  he  said  he  es 
pecially  wanted  the  parchment."  Expo,  and  Def.  of  £7,  p. 
166. 

This  is  what  is  called  in  logic,  a  "  false  issue."  It  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  it  is  denied  that  God  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men  ;  whereas,  no  Christian  writer,  to  our  knowledge,  ever 
did  so ;  but  on  the  contrary  it  is  contended,  in  opposition  to 
Universalists,  that  he  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and  not  that  he 
will  become  such  in  eternity. 

It  will  be  time  enough  to  use  this  illustration  when  we  deny 
that  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and  when  Universalists  shall 
have  proved  that  it  indicates  the  salvation  of  all  in  the  immortal 
state.  The  book  and  parchment  illustration  is  just  no  illustra 
tion  of  the  case. 

By  the  quotations  it  will  be  seen  that  Universalists  consider 
the  resurrection  of  all  men  as  equivalent  to  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  To  express  their  views,  then,  the  text  should  read  : 
"  Therefore  we  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we  trust 
in  the  living  God,  who  will  raise  all  men  from  the  dead,  espe 
cially  those  that  believe  !  " 

A  writer  in  the  Banner  (Sept.  4,  1842)  made  quite  a  flour 
ish  over  our  admission,  that  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  and 
called  us  "  an  unconscious  Universalist. "  He  bases  his  argu 
ment  upon  the  immutability  of  God,  thus  :  "  Now  if  God  is  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  of  course  he  always  will  be  the  Saviour  of 
all,  from  the  fact  that  he  changes  not.  "We  should  think  that 
any  man  without  his  logical  glasses,  could  discover  from  the  na 
ture  of  God,  that  whatever  he  was,  he  is,  he  always  will  be." 
By  applying  his  own  logic  it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  J.  H.  S.  is 
an  unconscious  believer  in  the  endless  anger  of  God.  "  God  is 
angry  with  the  wicked  every  day."  Ps.  7:11.  Now,  if  God 
was  angry  with  the  wicked  when  the  Psalmist  wrote,  he  is  now 
angry  with  the  wicked,  and  "  always  will  be"  God's  anger 
then  is  endless.  Paul,  speaking  of  the  vengeance  of  God, 


262  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

says  :  "  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living 
God."  Heb.  10  :  31. 

Now  if  it  was  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  God, 
because  of  his  vengeance,  it  is  now,  and  "  always  will  be  "  for 
"  he  changes  not."  But  how  does  endless  vengeance  comport 
with  the  endless  salvation  of  all  men  ?  (Sec.  XVIII.)  The 
same  application  might  be  made  to  2  Kings  22 : 13  ;  Ps.  5:5; 
11:5,  and  a  host  of  other  texts.  If  the  man  has  proved  any 
thing  by  his  argument,  he  has  proved  Universalism  to  be  false. 
One  step  more.  If  the  unchangableness  of  God  secures  the 
salvation  of  all  in  the  immortal  state,  because  he  is  the  Saviour 
of  all  now,  then  for  the  same  reason  the  salvation  of  heaven  and 
of  this  world  must  be  exactly  the  same,  not  only  in  nature,  but 
also  in  degree  ;  for  according  to  the  argument,  what  he  is  to  his 
creatures  as  Saviour  now,  he  always  will  be  ;  and  as  there  is  now 
much  of  sin  and  misery  in  existence,  while  God  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  so  there  always  will  be,  for  "  he  changes  not."  If 
this  argument  is  sound,  nothing  is  gained  by  any  of  our  race  in 
exchanging  worlds,  and  so  Paul  was  mistaken  when  he  said, 
"  to  die  is  gain."  No  more  need  be  said  to  show  the  weight  of 
such  an  argument. 

We  see,  then,  that  using  this  text  to  prove  the  salvation  of  all 
men  in  the  future  state,  or  to  prove  that  the  apostles  were  perse 
cuted  for  preaching  Universalism,  is  a  gross  perversion  of  its 
clear  and  evident  teaching.  * 

XCVI.  "  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them,  take  heed  and  le- 
ware  of  the  leaven  (doctrine,  ver.  12)  of  the  Pharisees  and  of 
the  Sadducees."  Matt.  16  :  6. 

Mr.  Whittemore,  referring  to  this  text,  says  :  "  Jesus  warned 
the  people  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  who  are  well 
known  to  have  believed  in  endless  punishment."  Guide, 
p.  42. 

We  know  that  the  Pharisees  believed  in  endless  punishment ; 
and  we  also  know  that  it  is  a  gross  perversion  of  our  Lord's 


Sec.  96.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  263 

words  to  say,  that  in  this  text,  his  disciples  are  warned  against 
this  doctrine.  An  Atheist  might,  with  just  as  much  propriety, 
force  these  words  into  his  service,  by  saying  :  "  Jesus  warned 
the  people  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  who  are  well 
known  to  have  believed  in  the  being  of  God"  and  thus  prove 
that'the  Saviour  was  an  Atheist,  and  that  he  taught  his  disciples 
Atheism  !  Give  us  the  liberty  taken  with  this  text,  and  we  will 
take  the  position  that  a  Christian  ought  not  to  believe  in  the  being 
and  unity  of  God,  a  general  providence,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  a  resurrection,  or  eternal  bliss ;  and  should  any  call  in 
question  such  unbelief,  they  shall  be  silenced  with,  "beware  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,"  for  they  held  all  these  doctrines. 
Had  the  Jews  been  asserting  their  doctrine  of  eternal  punish 
ment,  or  calling  in  question  our  Saviour's  Universalism,  there 
might  be  some  propriety  in  considering  the  warning  as  against 
future  punishment;  but  nothing  of  the  kind  appears  in  the 
context.* 

This  warning  appears  to  have  been  directed  against  the  super 
stitious  and  hypocritical  teachings  of  the  Jews  about  signs.  The 
Jewish  people,  it  is  well  known,  were  desirous  of  the  appearing 
of  the  Messiah  ;  but  by  the  erroneous  doctrines  which  had  ob 
tained  among  them,  relative  to  the  manner  of  his  coming  and 
the  nature  of  his  reign,  they  were  led  to  reject  him,  and  still  to 
look  for  the  signs  of  his  appearing.  Hence  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees  insultingly  and  hypocritically  ask  him  for  a  sign,  ver. 
1.  Our  Saviour,  after  upbraiding  them  with  dullness  of  appre 
hension,  and  calling  them  hypocrites,  and  a  wicked  and  adulter 
ous  generation,  seeking  after  a  sign,  declares,  "  There  shall  no 
sign  be  given  unto  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas."  See 
ver.  3  and  4.  Christ  had  already  wrought  miracles  in  their 
presence  sufficient  to  demonstrate  his  Messiahship,  and  but  one 

*  Mr.  Thayer,  a  Universalist  minister,  in  his  late  work,  asserts  that  end 
less  punishment  was  the  popular  doctrine,  both  of  Jews  and  Pagans,  in  the 
Saviour's  time,  and,  also,  that  the  Saviour  maintained  a  position  of  "entire 
silence  "  toward  it.  His.  of  E.  Punishment,  p.  137. 


264  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OP    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

more  was  necessary  to  fulfill  the  scriptures,  to  take  away  the 
scandal  of  the  cross,  and  to  establish  his  religion ;  that  was 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  which  was  typified  in  the  case  of 
Jonah. 

Of  such  doctrine  as  this,  that  led  the  people  to  shut  their 
eyes  against  all  the  evidence  of  his  Messiahship,  and  still  to  look 
for  the  coming  of  their  deliverer,  Christ  would  have  his  disci 
ples  beware  ;  but  not  of  the  doctrine  of  future  and  eternal  pun 
ishment. 

We  may  observe,  too,  that  this  warning  was  against  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Sadducees,  as  well  as  Pharisees ;  but  it  is  well 
known  that  the  Sadducees  no  more  believed  in  endless  punish 
ment,  than  they  did  in  Universalism.  They,  too,  were  the  ene 
mies  of  our  Lord,  as  well  as  the  Pharisees.  In  Luke  12  :  1,  the 
Saviour  warns  his  disciples  against  "the  leaven  of  the  Phari 
sees,"  which  he  says  is  "  hypocrisy."  But  we  think  his  mean 
ing  in  Matt.  16 : 6,  is  given  above ;  for,  says  Paul,  (1  Cor.  1  : 
22)  :  "  The  Jews  require  a  sign." 

We  assert,  That  while  the  Saviour  exercised  his  ministry 
among  believers  in  endless  punishment ;  that  he  never  pointed 
it  out  as  an  error,  or  warned  the  people  against  it  in  a  single 
instance,  and  that  this  omission  can  never  be  reconciled  with 
the  idea  that  he  was  a  teacher  of  Universalism.  The  text 
here  examined  is  the  only  one  we  have  ever  seen  produced  to 
disprove  this  position,  and  with  what  force  the  reader  can  judge. 
See  Sec.  CXXXII. 

XC  VII.  "  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant,  that  was  con 
firmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make 
the  promise  of  none  effect.  Is  the  law  then  against  the 
promises  of  God?  God  forbid."  Gal.  3  : 17-21. 

In  answer  to  an  objection  raised  by  himself,  that  Universalists 
keep  the  threatenings  of  God  concealed,  Mr.  Williamson  quotes 
these  texts,  and  says :  "  I  know,  as  well  as  you  can  know,  that 


Sec.   98.]  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE. 


265 


there  are  many  threatenings  in  the  law,  but  I  tell  you  that  these 
are  not  against  the  promises  ;  and  when  you  explain  them  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  make  them  conflict  with  the  promises,  you 
pervert  them."  Mr.  W.  then  goes  on  to  state,  that  endless  pun 
ishment  cannot  be  true,  for  it  is  against  the  promises,  taking  for 
granted  what  he  would  do  well  to  prove,  viz.,  that  God  has 
promised  to  save  the  whole  human  race  in  the  future  state.  And 
then  refering  to  Eev.  21 : 4,  he  adds  :  "  Here  is  the  covenant, 
it  promises  with  the  most  solemn  certainty,  that  there  shall  come 
a  time  when  there  shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow,  nor 
crying,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain."  Ex.  and  Def. 
of  U.,  p.  144. 

This  writer  perverts  Gal.  3  :  17-21,  by  making  it  teach  that 
God  covenanted  with  Abraham  to  make  all  the  human  race  holy 
and  happy  in  eternity,  when  no  such  promise  was  ever  made. 
(Sec.  I.)  The  apostle  in  the  chapter  shows  that  justification  by 
faith  is  promised  in  the  covenant,  and  that  the  Gentiles,  as  well 
as  the  Jews,  might  become  heirs  if  they  would  believe  in  Christ. 
Mr.  W.  perverts  Kev.  21  :  4  by  forcing  it  to  teach  that  there 
shall  be  no  more  death,  sorrow,  crying,  or  pain,  for  any  of  the 
human  family ;  whereas  this  is  affirmed  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  New  Jerusalem  only.  Turn  to  it  and  read  what  precedes 
and  follows.  See,  also,  Sec.  LXXXYII,  where  it  is  ex 
amined. 

That  which  requires  such  gross  perversions  to  sustain  it,  cannot 
be  the  truth  of  God. 

XCVIII.  "  Then  was  Jesus  led  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wil 
derness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil,"  &c.  Matt.  4  : 1-11 ;  Luke 
4  : 1-13  :  Mark  1 : 12,  13. 

The  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  the  devil  enters  so  far  into 
the  essence  of  Christianity,  that  those  who  deny  it  generally 
deny  all  the  peculiar  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
No  man  is  properly  acquainted  with  the  condition  of  his  race 
until  he  sees  that  "  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the  wicked  one." 


2G6  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

1  John  5  :  9.  See  Clarke  in  loco.  Ministers  do  not  execute 
their  high  commission  until  they  turn  men  "  from  the  power  of 
Satan  to  God."  Acts  26  :  18.  ''For  this  purpose  the  Son  of 
God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the 
devil.  1  John  3:8.  Only  the  existence  and  works  of  the 
devil  can  account  for  the  advent  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God. 
A  man's  religious  sentiment  may  usually  be  detected  by  what 
he  holds  respecting  the  devil.  If  he  will  have  it  that  the  devil 
means  evil  propensities,  carnal  mind,  or  persecuting  Jews,  you 
may  generally  class  him  with  the  so  called  liberals,  which  in 
general  is  but  another  name  for  modern  infidels.  One  grand 
device  of  the  devil  is  to  beget  a  disbelief  in  his  own  existence, 
for  he  knows  that  "  in  vain  the  net  is  spread  in  the  sight  of  any 
bird."  Prov.  1  :  17.  This  done  he  springs  his  snare,  and  his 
victims  "  are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will,"  boasting  all  the 
while  of  their  superior  liberty  and  light,  and  crying  out,  "no 
personal  devil."  To  this  class  of  men,  and  especially  those  of 
them  who  are  obliged  to  profess  a  regard  for  the  Bible  in  order 
to  teach  their  errors,  the  Saviour's  temptation  has  ever  proved  a 
source  of  trouble.  As  a  theological  curiosity,  and  a  specimen 
of  the  treatment  of  this  subject  by  the  visible  father  of  Amer 
ican  Universalism,  we  present  the  following  from  Mr.  Ballou. 
He  inquires  : 

"  But  what  means  the  scripture,  which  speaks  of  a  devil? 
one  who  was  a  liar  from  the  beginning,  &c.  I  answer  :  I  have 
no  objection  to  believing  that  there  is  such  a  devil  as  the  scrip 
tures  speak  of.  He  is  called  the  old  serpent,  and  is  the  same  I 
have  described  which  beguiled  the  woman  in  the  beginning ; 
and  it  is  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God.  Any 
person  who  is  wholly  dictated  by  a  fleshly  mind,  may  justly  be 
called  a  devil,  as  in  the  case  of  Judas  and  Peter.  As  our  Lord 
said  to  the  Jews,  also,  "  Ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil ;  and 
the  lusts  of  your  father,  ye  will  do."  But  says  the  objector, 
do  you  think  our  Saviour  was  tempted  by  the  powers  of  the 
flesh,  when  it  was  said,  he  was  tempted  by  the  devil  ?  I  ask  in 


Sec.  98.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  267 

my  turn,  for  what  is  this  particular  circumstance  introduced ? 
If  we  cannot  prove,  from  our  own  experience,  that  we  are 
tempted  by  some  other  being  than  our  own  fleshly  appetites, 
would  it  be  anything  more  than  a  speculative  belief,  to  admit 
another  tempter  ?  But  says  the  objector,  that  does  not  answer 
the  question.  Then  let  us  look  at  his  temptations;  when  he 
hungered,  he  was  tempted  ;  by  what  ?  and  to  what  ?  Answer, 
by  hunger,  to  turn  stones  into  bread.  Here  was  a  fleshly  appe 
tite.  When  he  had  a  view  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth, 
and  their  worldly  glory,  he  was  tempted  to  avail  himself  of 
them.  Here  was  natural  ambition,  such  as  gave  rise  to  the  vic 
tories  of  an  Alexander.  When  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple 
he  was  tempted  to  cast  himself  down,  as  it  was  written  concern 
ing  him,  that  God  would  give  his  angels  charge  over  him,  &c. 
Here  was  that  passion  which  gives  rise  to  presumption,  and 
wishes  to  avoid  duty.  But  it  is  said,  the  devil  taJceth  him  about, 
thus  and  so  ;  not  literally,  however,  for  there  is  no  mountain  in 
the  world  that  commands  a  prospect  of  but  a  small  part  of  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world.  The  exceeding  high  mountain  on 
which  our  Redeemer  stood,  when  he  saw  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world,  and  the  glory  of  them,  was  the  mountain  of  human 
pride.  Remember,  when  a  person  is  on  a  mountain,  the  moun 
tain  is  beneath  his  feet.  So  was  this  mountain  of  human  pride 
beneath  the  feet  of  our  sinless  Redeemer. "  fiallou  on  Atone 
ment,  pp.  51,  52. 

Here  is  Universalist  theology  with  all  its  beauties.  The  ex 
ceeding  high  mountain  is  the  mountain  of  human  pride,  and  by 
the  assistance  of  the  devil  (Matt.  4  :  8)  the  Saviour  has  got  hu 
man  pride  beneath  his  feet !  !  But  what  is  this  devil  ?  Mr.  B. 
has  just  told  us  that  "  it  is  the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity 
against  God"  He  has  told  us,  too,  that  this  mountain  of  hu 
man  pride  was  "  beneath  the  feet  of  our  sinless  Redeemer." 

It  comes  to  this,  then ;  the  sinless  Redeemer's  carnal  mind, 
which  is  enmity  against  God,  placed  him  in  such  a  position  that 
human  pride* was  beneath  his  feet.  Abominable!  Did  the 


268  UNIVERSALTSM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Saviour  have  a  carnal  mind  or  enmity  to  God  urging  him  on  in  this 
direction  ?  Is  it  by  the  carnal  mind  that  victory  is  gained  over 
human  pride  ?  Was  the  holy  Saviour  inflated  with  human  pride 
before  his  conflict  with  Satan  ?  Mr.  Ballou  flatly  contradicts 
himself  by  first  saying  that  the  devil  is  the  carnal  mind,  which 
the  Saviour  must  have  had  in  order  to  be  tempted  by  it,  and 
then  calling  the  Saviour  the  "  sinless  Redeemer."  The  fact  is 
clear  that  there  is  no  possible  way  to  get  rid  of  the  idea  of  a 
personal  devil  in  the  temptation  of  Christ,  without  making  the 
Saviour  a  sinner,  which  is  to  contradict  the  Bible.  1  Peter  2  : 
22  ;  Heb.  7  :  26  ;  1  John  3:5;  Rev.  3  :  7. 

Let  us  apply  Mr.  Ballou's  theory  to  that  important  passage 
found  Eph.  6  : 12  :  "  For  we  wrestle  not  against  flesh  and  blood, 
but  against  principalities,  against  powers,  against  the  rulers  of 
the  darkness  of  this  world,  against  spiritual  wickedness  in  high 
places." 

This  is  given  by  the  apostle  to  prepare  his  brethren  to  stand 
against  "the  wiles  of  the  devil."  Ver.  5.  Says  Mr.  Ballou, 
"  Any  person,  who  is  wholly  dictated  by  a  fleshly  mind,  maybe 
justly  called  a  devil."  But  the  apostle  says,  in  striving  against 
the  devil,  "  we  wrestle  not  with  flesh  and  blood."  So  we  see 
that  Mr.  B.  and  the  scriptures  are  at  odds  again. 

Apply  the  Universalist  theory  of  personification  to  Matt.  8  : 
28-34,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  devils  besought  the  Saviour 
that,  in  case  he  cast  them  out,  he  would  suffer  them  to  go  into  a 
herd  of  swine.  "  And  he  said  go  ;  and  when  they  were  come 
out,  they  went  into  the  herd  of  swine,"  &c.  In  this  account, 
who  besought  Christ  to  suffer  them  to  enter  into  the  swine  ? 
Were  they  evil  principles,  fleshly  minds,  carnal  natures,  or  in 
sanity?  Did  these,  or  any  of  them,  leave  these  men  and  enter 
the  swine  ?  Preposterous  !  Says  Dr.  Clarke  upon  this  pas 
sage  :  "  Certain  doctors  in  both  sciences,  divinity  and  physic, 
gravely  tell  us  that  these  demoniacs  were  only  common  madmen, 
and  that  the  disease  was  supposed,  by  the  superstitious  Jews,  to 
be  occasioned  by  demons.  But,  with  due  deference  to  great 


SeC.  98.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE    BIBLE.  269 

characters,  may  not  a  plain  man  Tbe  permitted  to  ask,  by  what 
figure  of  speech  can  it  be  said  that  "  two  diseases  besought  — 
went  out  — filed  a  herd  of  swine  —  rushed  down  a  precipice" 
&c.  What  silly  trifling  is  this  !  Some  people's  creeds  will 
neither  permit  God  nor  the  devil  to  work ;  and,  in  several  re 
spects,  hardly  to  exist.  For  he  who  denies  divine  inspiration 
will  scarcely  acknowledge  diabolical  influence."  Well  might 
Dr.  Clarke  call  this  "  silly  trifling ! "  Whatever  might  be 
thought  of  their  opinions,  such  men  would  certainly  command 
more  respect  for  themselves  were  they  to  come  out  boldly,  as 
did  their  former  brother,  Abner  Kneeland,  and  cast  aside  the 
whole  book  of  God.  That  the  Universalist  denomination  is  rife 
with  skeptical  views,  concerning  some  of  the  plainest  teach 
ings  of  the  Bible,  is  well  known  to  many.  Its  advocates  have 
been  for  a  long  time  warming  and  nourishing  the  serpent  Infi 
delity  into  vigorous  life.  Thus  strengthened  in  the  order,  he 
has  grown  rampant,  and  it  has  been  with  some  degree  of  diffi 
culty  that  the  leaders  have  prevented  a  full  exhibition  of  his 
ugly  proportions  to  the  gaze  of  those  without.  A  resolution 
passed  by  the  Boston  Association  of  Universalists,  at  Cam- 
bridgeport.  Nov.  1,  1847,  furnished  the  occasion  for  their  tear 
ing  the  masks  from  each  other's  faces.  The  resolution  was 
against  certain  rank  Infidel  sentiments,  which  some,  more  bold 
than  the  rest,  had  begun  to  proclaim  openly.  (Sec.  CXVIII.) 
The  aggrieved  brethren  subsequently  published  "  A  Statement 
of  Facts,"  showing  most  clearly  that  they  had  adopted  no  new 
method  to  dispose  of  offensive  scriptures  ;  that  Mr.  Ballou  long 
before  this  had  been  as  infidel  as  they  were.  As  an  illustration 
of  this,  Mr.  J.  W.  Hanson,  whose  name,  with  others,  is  ap 
pended  to  the  document,  and  is  still  a  minister  of  the  order, 
gives  the  following  anecdote. 

"  The  following  incident  is  related  by  the  respectable  physi 
cian  mentioned  therein,  who  is  ready  to  vouch  for  its  substantial 
accuracy  :  In  the  year  1814,  Father  Ballou  preached  in  the  old 
township  of  Dunstable,  and  was  entertained  by  Mr.  Hunt,  father 


270  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

of  Eben  Hunt,  M.  D.,  now  of  Danvers.  On  reaching  the  house 
at  the  close  of  the  services,  an  older  brother  of  Eben's,  who  was 
said  to  be  somewhat  skeptical,  said  to  Mr.  Ballou :  '  What  do 
vou  make  of  the  account  of  the  devils  which  were  driven  into  a 
herd  of  swine  ?  '  '  Ah  !  '  said  the  old  gentleman,  '  I  was 
always  sorry  they  put  that  story  in  !  " 

The  infidelity  here  developed  needs  no  comment.     Hear  Mr. 
Hanson  again  in  this  same  document : 

"  That  the  principle  which,  when  logically  carried  out,  results 
in  Rationalism,  is  very  general  in  the  Universalist  body,  is  ver 
itably  true.  Rev.  A.  A.  Miner  was  asked,  during  the  recent 
session  at  Cambridgeport,  if  he  believed  that  Christ  cast  out 
devils  from  a  human  body ;  he  answered  :  '  Most  assuredly  I 
do.'  The  reply  was,  '  You  are  the  first  Universalist  I  ever  heard 
say  so/  Rev.  L.  R.  Page  replied,  '  And  you  are  the  first  I 
ever  heard  deny  it.'  This  conversation  needs  to  be  explained  to 
convey  a  correct  idea.  There  is  not  a  single  Universalist 
preacher  who  believes  that  Christ  ever  cast  out  devils  or  demons 
from  a  human  being.  They  believe  that  those  who  were  oper 
ated  upon  by  the  Saviour  were  insane  or  epileptic.  And  yet  the 
Bible  says  nothing  of  the  sort.  Whenever,  therefore,  a  Uni 
versalist  discovers  the  word  demon  or  devil,  as  lie,  does  not 
believe  in  such,  he  exercises  RATIONALISTIC  PRINCIPLES,  and 
calls  it  insane.  Why  does  he  then  fault  those  who  apply  the 
same  principle  to  other  subjects  ?  The  Jews  believed  that  lit 
eral  devils  possessed  men,  and  Christ  used  their  precise  phrase 
ology.  The  Universalist  Commentary  may  say  that  Christ  cured 
men  of  epileptic  jits  ;  the  BIBLE  says  he  cast  out  devils."  St. 
of  Facts,  Feb.  5,  1848. 

Here  it  is  contended,  not  by  an  enemy  to  Universalism,  but 
by  one  of  its  advocates  in  good  standing  in  the  order,  and  now 
editor  of  the  Gospel  Banner,  in  Maine,  that  the  Bible  teaches 
just  what  Christians  have  ever  believed  concerning  the  Saviour's 
casting  out  devils,  and  that  Universalist  preachers  do  not  believe 
it.  What  is  all  this  but  an  admission  that  the  Bible  and  Uni- 


SeC.   98.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  271 

versalism  stand  opposed  to  each  other?  Yet  these  men,  who 
thus  assert  their  own  supremacy  over  the  Bible,  stand  up  behind 
it  and  preach  to  the  people  !  With  such  license  and  reckless 
ness,  what  matters  it  to  them  whether  they  take  their  text  from 
Sinbad  the  Sailor  or  the  Bible,  other  than  that  they  can  more 
successfully  deceive  the  people  by  the  latter  ? 

The  text  in  James  1  :  14  is  brought  against  the  personality  of 
the  devil.  It  reads  thus  :  "But  every  man  is  tempted,  when 
he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust,  and  enticed."  The  argument 
amounts  to  this  :  James  says,  men,  when  tempted,  are  drawn 
away  by  their  own  lusts  ;  therefore,  there  is  no  personal  devil  to 
tempt  men.  This  is  as  logical  as  the  following  :  Floods  some 
times  destroy  buildings;  therefore,  buildings  are  never  destroyed 
by  fire  !  The  objection  based  upon  this  text  vanishes  when  it  is 
understood  that  no  Christian  contends  that  the  devil  is  the  only 
source  of  temptation.  It  by  no  means  follows  that  because  men 
are  drawn  away  by  their  own  lusts,  that  there  is  no  personal 
devil  who  exercises  an  agency  in  tempting  the  fallen  race  of 
Adam. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  Saviour  called  Peter,  Satan,  (Matt. 
16  :  23,)  and  Judas  a  devil  (John  G  :  TO.)  Well,  suppose  that 
Judas,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  for  his  wickedness  was  called  a 
devil ;  and  Peter,  for  his  opposition  to  the  Saviour's  prediction 
concerning  his  death,  was  called  Satan  :  does  it  follow  that  there 
is  no  real  or  personal  devil  ?  The  idols  of  the  heathen  are 
called  gods,  and  the  Psalmist  says  of  wicked  judges,  "  Ye  are 
gods  "  (Ps.  82  :  6)  ;  but  does  it  follow  that  there  is  no  real  or 
true  God  ?  Says  Mr.  Hare,  "  When  it  is  so  plain  a  fact  that 
there  is  an  infernal  devil  and  spiritual  Satan,  it  can  answer  no 
purpose  to  quote  a  hundred  texts  of  scripture  to  prove  that  men 
or  women  are  sometimes  called  devils,  (i.  e.,  calumniators,)  or 
satans  (i.  e.,  adversaries).  The  existence  of  ten  thousand 
human  devils,  and  earthly  satans,  brings  no  evidence  that  there 
is  no  chief  of  demons,  nor  spiritual  devil  or  hellish  Satan." 
Errors  of  Soc.,  p.  54.  What  would  be  thought  of  us,  were 


272  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

we  to  set  up  an  argument  against  the  existence  of  God,  based 
upon  the  fact  that  images  and  men  are  called  gods  in  the  Bible  ? 
A  graceless  work,  truly ;  but  no  more  so  than  the  work  of 
Universalists  upon  the  subject  under  consideration.  A  cunning 
Atheist  could  say  as  many  smart  and  witty  things  against  the 
Bible  account  of  the  being  of  God,  as  any  Universalist  can 
against  the  existence  of  the  devil. 

We  are  sometimes  charged  with  believing  in  an  "  omnipresent 
and  almighty  devil."  When  Universalists  attack  this  "castle 
in  the  air,"  we  admit  that  they  are  sure  to  demolish  it.  Chris 
tians  believe  in  no  such  being.  In  Matt.  4  :  10,  11,  the  terms 
devil  and  satan  are  used  to  designate  the  same  being  ;  and  in 
Luke  11 :  15,  this  Satan,  the  Devil,  Beelzebub,  is  called  the 
chief  of  demons;  hence  our  Lord  attributes  to  him  a  kingdom. 
Luke  11  :  18.  This  chief  has  subordinates,  (Matt.  25  :  41,) 
and  these  are  very  numerous,  as  we  are  given  to  understand. 
Luke  8  :  30.  From  these  and  many  other  Scriptures  which 
might  be  adduced,  we  are  authorized  to  conceive  of  Satan  as  the 
head  of  a  vast  spiritual  dominion  ;  and  thus  account  for  the  extent 
of  the  agency  he  exerts  in  tempting  and  seducing  the  world,  and 
that,  too,  without  conceiving  of  him  as  omnipresent.  When  Napo 
leon  made  Europe  tremble  with  the  terror  of  his  arms,  his  power 
extended  far  beyond  his  personal  presence,  and  what  was  accom 
plished  by  his  armies,  was  attributed  to  him.  So  with  Satan's 
legions  ;  what  they  accomplish  is  attributed  to  him.  How  rap 
idly  spirits  move,  is  not  for  us  to  determine.  It  is  possible  they 
move  as  quick  as  thought :  at  any  rate,  Satan  is  represented  as 
very  active,  "  going  to  and  fro  in  the  earth."  Job  1  :  7  ;  1  Pet. 
5:8. 

"  Should  the  impossibility  of  a  finite  being  tempting  many 
persons,  in  different  places,  atone  time,  leave  an  apparent  diffi 
culty  on  this  subject ;  it  must  be  noticed,  1.  That  the  devil  has 
many  demons  under  his  direction.  2.  That  we  do  not  precisely 
know  what  relation  a  spirit  has  to  place.  3.  That  though  the 
power  of  Satan  is  not  infinite,  it  may  be  very  great.  4.  That 


SeC     98.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

we  are  not  sure  that  evil  spirits  may  not  produce  effects  "which 
often  remain  when  those  spirits  are  no  longer  immediately  pres 
ent.  We  know  that  a  moral  principle  once  imbibed  often  pro 
duces  effects  for  a  long  period  after  the  departure  of  the  person 
from  whom  it  has  been  imbibed."  Errors  of  Soc.,  p.  57. 

It  is  asked,  "  why  does  God  permit  a  subordinate  being  to 
accomplish  so  much  mischief  as  is  attributed  to  the  devil  ?  "  We 
in  turn  ask,  why  does  God  permit  so  much  mischief  as  is  attrib 
uted  by  Universalists  to  the  "principle  of  evil,"  or  "carnal 
mind?"  Moral  evil  exists,  and  is  produced  by  subordinate 
beings  ;  and  if  its  existence  reflects  ingloriously  upon  the  Divine 
government,  it  matters  but  little  how  it  has  obtained  in  the 
world,  that  is,  so  far  as  the  honor  of  the  Divine  administration  is 
concerned.  We  learn  from  the  Bible  that  both  men  and  devils 
have  an  agency  in  producing  it.  A  hundred  unanswerable 
questions  might  be  proposed  concerning  the  origin  of  the  devil, 
and  his  work  ;  and  as  many,  equally  unanswerable,  might  be 
propounded  concerning  the  origin  and  existence  of  the  "  princi 
ple  of  evil."  What  important  truth  is  there  in  the  Bible  but 
may  be  destroyed  by  this  process,  if  admitted  to  be  correct  ? 
Take  the  existence  of  God,  which  Universalists  profess  to  believe 
in  common  with  others,  and  who  does  not  know  that  questions 
may  be  proposed  upon  this  subject  to  almost  any  extent,  such  as 
no  sane  man  would  think  of  answering.  "  Fools  may  ask  ques 
tions  that  wise  men  cannot  answer  "  upon  this,  as  well  as  other 
subjects.  Negatives  and  artful  questions  concerning  things 
clearly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  have  formed  the  stronghold  of  infi 
delity  the  world  over  ;  and  Universalism  has  reaped  a  rich  har 
vest  from  this  soil,  in  its  opposition  to  truth.  The  question  with 
the  Christian  is  not  what  does  skepticism  say  concerning  heaven 
or  hell,  God  or  the  devil,  but,  WHAT  DOES  THE  BIBLE 
SAY? 

But  it  is  inquired,  "  Does  piety  depend  upon  the  belief  of  a 
devil  ?' '  Not  Universalist  piety ;  but  true  piety  depends  much  upon 
it.  Mark  it,  reader  ;  when  you  find  a  man  who  will  deny  the  exist- 
14 


274  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ence  of  the  devil,  with  all  the  evidence  the  Scriptures  afford  of  the 
fact,  that  man's  mind  is  prepared  to  deny  any  other  doctrine,  no 
matter  how  clearly  revealed,  if  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  his  feel 
ings.  Christian  piety  includes  the  duty  of  believing  the  truths 
and  warnings  of  God's  word.  It  includes  the  duty  of  resisting 
the  devil,  that  he  may  flee  from  us  (Jas.  4:7);  it  consists  in 
the  exercise  of  watchfulness,  which  acquaints  us  with  his  devices 
(2  Cor.  2  :  11)  ;  and  in  holding  fast  the  shield  of  faith,  where 
with  we  shall  be  able  to  quench  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  wicked 
one  (Eph.  6  :  16).  These  are  the  influences  that  are  upon  the 
hearts  of  pious  Christians,  prompting  to  watchfulness,  prayer, 
and  zeal  in  the  cause  of  Christ ;  and  the  best  heads  and  hearts 
that  ever  adorned  the  world,  have  been  under  such  influences ; 
being  conscious,  by  the  struggles  they  had  with  the  powers  of 
darkness,  of  the  personal  existence  of  the  devil.  But  those  who 
are  blinded  by  the  god  of  this  world,  and  are  under  the  influ 
ence  of  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedi 
ence,  (Eph.  2:2,)  who  are  led  captive  by  the  devil  at  his  will, 
(2  Tim.  2  :  26,)  have  no  such  conflicts,  and  it  is  not  very  strange 
that  in  their  pride  and  self-procured  blindness  they  should  deny 
his  existence,  and  see  in  those  scriptures  which  reveal  his  being, 
the  "  carnal  mind,"  "  principle  of  evil,"  or  "  evil  personified," 
or  anything  or  nothing,  as  a  depraved  imagination  may  dictate. 
One  thought  more.  It  is  abundantly  admitted  by  Universal- 
ists  themselves,  that  the  Jews  in  our  Saviour's  time,  believed  in 
the  existence  of  personal  devils  or  demons.  Mr.  Kanson,  as  we 
have  seen,  has  asserted  this.  Speaking  of  Christ,  Mr.  Balfour 
says,  "  he  spoke  of  demons  as  real  beings ;  of  Beelzebub,  as  the 
prince  of  devils  or  demons  ;  and  of  Satan,  or  the  devil,  as  an  evil 
being  "  (Essays,  p.  67)  ;  and  Mr.  Hanson  asserts  that  "  Christ 
used  their  (the  Jews)  precise  phraseology  "  respecting  them. 
Now  the  question  is,  was  it  any  part  of  the  Saviour's  mission  to 
point  out  and  correct  the  errors  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived  ? 
Mr.  Whittemore  shall  answer.  "  Our  Saviour,  when  on  earth, 
labored  hard  to  root  up  the  plants  which  his  Father  had  not 


Sec.  98.]  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  275 

planted.     He  knew  that  error  was  injurious  to  man,  and  that  he 
performed  an  act  of  kindness  and  duty  in  exposing  it.     It  would 
Ibe  a  task  far  too  arduous  to  mention  all  the  instances  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  pointing  out 
and  contending  against  the  errors  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived." 
Trumpet,  No.  750.     The  Jews  believed  that  devils  were  real 
beings,  and  not  diseases  or  evil  personified,  as  Universalists 
assert.     Now  if  this  were  false,  and  if,  as  Mr.  W.  asserts,  the 
Saviour  was  so  careful  to  point  out  and  contend  against  the  errors 
of  the  age,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  find  some  clear  and 
decided  opposition  to  this  error,  on  the  part  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles.     But  what  is  the  fact  ?     We  assert,  without  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  not  a  single  instance  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible   where  this  doctrine  is  held  up  as  an  error  ;    but  on  the 
other  hand,  as  Mr.  Hanson  says,  Christ  used  the  same  phrase 
ology  that  the  Jews  did  respecting  it.     Why  did  not  the  Great 
Teacher  rebuke  and  expose  this  error,  if  it  were  one  ?     Why 
seem  to  favor  it,  by  the  use  of  such  language  as  has  deceived  the 
church  for  eighteen  centuries  ?     Christ,  say  Universalists,  came 
to  save  men  from  ignorance ;  and  yet  he  left  the  Jews,  among 
whom  he  labored  during  the  years  of  his  incarnation,  in  the  most 
profound  ignorance  respecting  the  personality  of  the  devil,  and 
by  adopting  their  "  precise  phraseology,"  has  entailed  this  ig 
norance  upon  the  church   for  eighteen  hundred  years !     How 
unlike  is  this  to  the  course  of  Universalist  teachers  in  this  age, 
who  are  prompt  in  apprising  people  that  there  is  no  personal 
devil,  and  wonder  at  and  pity  the  credulity  that  can  receive  such 
a  doctrine  ;  and  then,  as  if  to  cap  the  climax  of  absurdity,  they 
claim  to  be  the  only  true  successors  of  the  Saviour  in  the  minis 
try  !    The  same  views  are  applicable  to  this,  that  we  have  taken  of 
the  Saviour's  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment. 
(Sec.  CXXXII.)     To  the  sincere  inquirer  after  truth,  no  more 
need  be  said  to  show  the  falsity  of  Universalist  views  upon  this 
subject. 


276  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

XCIX.  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death  ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Rom.  6  :  23. 

The  author  of  the  Guide,  in  constructing  an  argument  upon 
Horn.  5  :  18,  says,  "  We  find  '  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life.'  This  free  gift  is  eternal  life.  See 
Rom.  6  :  23."  Thus  he  uses  the  last  member  of  this  text  to 
prove  Universalism,  or  that  all  shall  enjoy  endless  bliss  in  the 
future  world.  The  passage,  it  will  be  seen,  presents  an  antithe 
sis  ;  and  if  the  eternal  life  named  in  the  second  member  of  the 
verse  means  endless  bliss,  as  Mr.  Whittemore  admits  by  the  use 
he  has  made  of  it,  then  the  death  in  the  first  member  is  endless 
death.  Observe,  the  death  here  named  is  contrasted  with  end 
less  life,  and  "as  no  medium  can  be  found  between  life  and 
death,  the  death  incurred  by  sin  could  not  make  eternal  life 
necessary,  unless  that  death  were  otherwise  eternal.  If  man 
kind  are  not  exposed  to  eternal  death,  they  have  already  eternal 
life,  and  God  needed  not  to  give  it  by  Jesus  Christ ;  for  this 
•would  be  to  give  only  what  they  already  possess.  In  other 
words,  if  eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  then 
eternal  life  was  forfeited ;  which  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  the 
penalty  of  eternal  death  was  incurred."  Errors  of  Soc.,  p.  284. 

An  effort  has  been  made  to  turn  the  last  member  of  this  text 
against  the  conditionality  of  salvation,  because  eternal  life  is  the 
gift  of  God.  A  false  issue  is  often  raised  upon  this  subject. 
Christians  are  represented  as  expecting  to  merit  heaven  by  their 
good  works,  while  Universalists  are  so  evangelical  as  to  receive 
it  as  a  gift.  This  is  false.  Christians  constantly  affirm  that  all 
merit  is  in  Christ.  They  do  not,  however,  believe  that  eternal 
life  is  bestowed  unconditionally  ;  hence  they  urge  the  duty  of  a 
compliance  with  the  conditions,  and  a  use  of  the  means  to  secure 
it.  Does  this  destroy  the  idea  of  a  gift  ?  A  man  is  starving  ; 
a  friend  offers  him  bread  on  the  conditions  that  he  will  take  and 
eat.  He  complies  with  these  conditions,  and  is  saved  from  star 
vation.  Was  not  that  a  gift  ?  And  would  a  man  in  his  senses 


Sec.   100.]          UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OP   THE   BIBLE.  277 

think  he  had  merited  the  bread  merely  because  he  had  taken 
and  eaten  ?  Surely  not ;  but  he  would  count  that  man  his  bene 
factor  who  bestowed  upon  him  the  gift.  Man,  as  a  moral  being, 
has  power  to  receive  or  reject  the  gifts  of  God.  Are  not  all  our 
temporal  blessings  equally  the  gifts  of  God  ?  Yet  these  gifts  are 
sometimes  rejected,  perverted,  and  turned  into  curses.  Forgive 
ness  of  sins,  eternal  life  and  blessedness,  are  the  gifts  of  God,  to 
be  received,  however,  on  the  conditions  of  repentance,  faith,  and 
obedience  (John  3  : 14-16)  ;  for  while  it  is  declared  that  Christ 
"  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey 
him,"  (Heb.  5  :  9,)  it  is  also  declared  of  him  who  rejects  Christ, 
that  he  "  shall  not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on 
him."  John  3:  36. 

C.  "For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a  moment, 
worketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of 
glory  ;  while  we  look  not  at  the  things  which  are  seen,  but  at 
the  things  which  are  not  seen :  for  the  things  which  are  seen  are 
temporal;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal," 
2  Cor.  4  :  17,  18. 

This  is  the  language  of  contrast.  The  afflictions  of  the  Chris 
tian  are  light  when  contrasted  with  the  evils  of  sin,  here  and 
hereafter.  They  are  but  momentary,  when  contrasted  with  end 
less  duration.  It  is  also  the  language  of  holy  confidence  under 
sufferings.  They  "  work  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eter 
nal  weight  of  glory."  Observe  ;  these  afflictions  do  not  work 
for  the  Christian  mere  transient,  temporal  rewards,  but  an 
ETERNAL  WEIGHT  OF  GLORY.  But  Universalism  con 
tradicts  this,  by  asserting  that  all  rewards  and  punishments  are 
temporal  —  that  they  are  received  in  this  world,  and  end  with 
this  life.  But  Christians  look  for  their  reward  in  the  future, 
and  not  to  things  seen  which  are  temporal,  but  to  things  which 
are  not  seen,  but  which  will  be  realized  in  the  eternal  state. 
This  too  is  the  language  of  degree.  "  A  far  more  exceeding 
and  eternal  weight  of  glory."  The  obvious  sense  is,  that  our 


278  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

doing  and  suffering  here  for  Christ  will  enhance  our  future  glory. 
But  American  Universalisra  teaches  that  the  most  devout  and. 
holy  man  that  ever  lived,  shall  have  no  higher  bliss  in  the  future 
than  Julian  the  apostate,  or  any  other  polluted  scoundrel.  "All 
shall  be  equal,"  is  the  motto.  How  utterly  at  variance  is  this 
with  the  words  of  Paul ;  yet  he  is  called  a  Universalist ! 

CI.  "The  Son  of  Man  goeth,  as  it  is  written  of  him;  "but 
wo  unto  that  man  by  whom  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed !  it 
had  been  good  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born"  Matt. 
26 :  24. 

Dr.  Clarke  comments  as  follows  upon  this  passage  :  "  Can 
this  be  said  of  any  sinner,  in  the  common  sense  in  which  it  is 
understood,  if  there  be  any  redemption  from  hell's  torments  ? 
If  a  sinner  should  suffer  millions  of  millions  of  years  in  them, 
and  get  out  at  last  to  the  enjoyment  of  heaven,  then  it  was  well 
for  him  that  he  had  been  born ;  for  still  he  has  an  eternity  of 
blessedness  before  him.  Can  the  doctrine  of  the  non-eternity  of 
hell's  torments  stand  in  the  presence  of  this  saying  ?  Or  can 
the  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked  consist  with  this 
declaration  ?  It  would  have  been  well  for  that  man  if  he  had 
never  been  born  !  Then  he  must  be  in  a  state  of  conscious 
existence,  as  non-existence  is  said  to  be  better  than  that  state  in 
which  he  is  now  found."  Clarke  in  loco.  We  are  told  in 
argument,  to  get  rid  of  the  force  of  this  text,  that  this  was 
a  common  proverb  among  the  Jews.  Admitting  it  to  be  so,  it 
does  not  abate  its  force  when  coming  from  the  Saviour.  These 
words  are  not  merely  a  common  proverb,  but  a  divine  truth, 
when  uttered  by  him  in  whose  mouth  was  no  guile. 

OIL  "And  if  children,  then  heirs  ;  heirs  of  God,  and  joint 
heirs  with  Christ ;  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we 
may  be  also  glorified  together.  For  I  reckon  that  the  suffer 
ings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with 
the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in  ws."  Rom.  8  : 17,  18. 

This  is  spoken,  not  of  all  men  but  of  Christians  who  are  led 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  (v.  14,)  and  who  suffer  in  the  cause  of 


Sec.   103.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  279 

Christ.  It  is  declared  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time 
are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall  be 
revealed  in  us,  i.  e.,  as  a  result  of  our  suffering  with  him  here. 
None  need  mistake  the  sense  of  this  passage.  It  has  been  the 
solace  of  suffering  Christians  for  eighteen  centuries.  It  con 
nects  our  present  conduct  with  our  future  destiny,  which  Uni- 
versalism  impiously  denies.  Of  like  import  is  2  Tim.  2  : 11, 
12.  "  It  is  a  faithful  saying  ;  for  if  we  be  dead  with  him,  we 
shall  also  live  with  him  ;  if  we  suffer,  we  shall  also  reign  with 
him ;  if  we  deny  him,  he  will  also  deny  us."  Here  is  a  condi 
tional  promise  of  reigning  with  Christ,  and  being  owned  by  him 
at  last.  Such  must  be  "  dead  with  him,"  i.  e.,  die  to  sin.  Such 
must  own  him  before  the  world,  and  be  willing  to  suffer  for  his 
sake,  if  they  would  be  owned  of  Christ ;  for  "  if  we  deny  him, 
he  will  also  deny  us." 

GUI.   "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  Ex.  18  :  4. 
This  text  and  some  others  of  like  import  are  produced  by  Uni- 
versalists  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  no-escape  from  merited  pun 
ishment.     Such  scriptures  were  evidently  designed  to  set  before 
the  sinner  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  to  show  him  what  he  is 
to  expect  in  case  he   continues  impenitent ;    but  were  never 
designed  to  teach  that  there  is  no  remission  of  punishment  in 
case°of  penitence.     This  may  be  illustrated  by  civil  government. 
Go  to  the  statute  book,  and  we  shall  find  that  the  law  expressly 
declares,  "  He  that  committeth  murder  or  treason,  shall  die  for 
it;"  arid  yet  in  that  same  book  there  is  a  discretionary  and 
gracious  power  lodged  with  the  executive  to  pardon,  which  always 
means  the  remission  of  the  penalty  of  the  law.     So  in  Heaven's 
statute  book  it  is  declared,   "  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die," 
"  God  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty,"  &c.,  and  yet  in  the 
same  book  there  is  a  merciful  provision,  called  the  gospel,  pre 
sented  to  our  view,  in  which  Jesus  Christ  is  "  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteous 
ness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  PAST,  through  the 


280  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

forbearance  of  God  ;  to  declare,  I  say,  his  righteousness :  that 
he  might  be  jnst,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in 
Jesus."  Rom.  4:  25,  26.  God  says,  "When  I  say  to  the 
wicked  thou  sbalt  surely  die ;  if  he  turn  from  his  sins,  and  do 
that  which  is  lawful  and  right ;  if  the  wicked  restore  the  pledge, 
give  again  that  he  had  robbed,  &c.,  none  of  his  sins  that  he 
hath  committed  shall  be  mentioned  unto  him."  Ez.  33  :  14-16. 
Observe,  none  of  his  sins  that  he  HATII  committed  shall  be 
mentioned  unto  him.  Now  what  is  meant  by  this  declaration,  if 
it  is  not  that  on  condition  of  penitence  and  reformation,  the  sin 
ner  shall  be  exempted  from  deserved  punishment  for  past  sins  ? 
(Sec.  LXX.) 

"  That  salvation  is  of  grace,  that  the  whole  gospel  system  is 
of  grace,  is  everywhere  taught  in  the  Bible.  But  if  the  sinner 
actually  endures  the  whole  penalty  of  the  law,  he  owes  nothing 
to  justice,  and  therefore  cannot  be  indebted  to  grace.  For  it 
should  be  recollected  that  the  gospel  is  emphatically  called  grace, 
because  it  is  mercy  shown  to  sinners  —  it  is  favor  conferred  upon 
the  undeserving  and  the  ungodly.  But  those  who  by  dint  of 
suffering  have  borne  the  whole  penalty  of  God's  law,  and  thus 
discharged  all  its  claims,  cannot  say,  '  by  grace  I  am  saved,' 
but  '  by  suffering  I  am  delivered  ; '  and  now  strict  justice 
demands  that  I  should  be  admitted  into  heaven.  Their  song, 
therefore,  will  not  be  the  song  of  redeeming  grace,  for  they  are 
under  no  obligations  to  grace.  Does  the  criminal  praise  the 
lenity  and  clemency  of  that  government  which  has  inflicted  upon 
him  the  whole  demerit  of  his  crime  ?  Does  he  ever  think  he 
owes  his  enlargement  to  the  mercy  of  that  government  ?  Neither 
can  a  sinner  who  has  suffered  the  curse  of  the  law  to  its  full 
extent,  ascribe  his  deliverance  to  mercy.  There  is  not  a  parti 
cle  of  mercy  in  it.  If  men  had  seriously  set  themselves  to  work 
to  devise  a  system  directly  opposite  to  the  Bible,  it  is  clear  they 
could  not  have  hit  upon  one  more  suited  to  their  purpose  than 
this."  Dr.  Fisk.  That  all  punishment  is  not  disciplinary, 
may  be  seen  Sec.  CIY. 


Sec.  104.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  281 

CIV.  "Tfiough  he  cause  grief,  yet  he  will  have  compassion 
according  to  the  multitude  of  his  mercies  ;  for  he  doth  not 
afflict  willingly,  nor  grieve  the  children  of  men"  Lam.  3  : 
32,  33. 

The  Jews  are  chastised  by  being  cast  off  as  a  nation,  for  their 
departures  from  God.  The  Prophet  predicts  that  God  would 
yet  have  compassion,  and  deliver  them  from  Babylon  and  restore 
them  to  their  own  land;  for,  "Though  he  cause  grief,"  &c. 
From  this  it  is  assumed  that  all  punishment  is  amendatory,  and 
that  endless  punishment  is  false.  Guide,  p.  42. 

That  God  uses  disciplinary  punishments,  is  enforced  from 
every  Christian  pulpit.  These  chastisements  are  inflicted  both 
upon  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  with  a  design  to  bring  the 
latter  to  repentance,  and  preserve  the  former  in  the  way  of  duty, 
and  improve  them  in  holiness.  "  While  administering  this  dis 
cipline,  God  appears  as  a  father  correcting  his  children  for  their 
good,  mingling  the  assurance  of  his  love  with  every  stroke,  and 
showing  himself  ready  to  forgive  their  iniquities  when  they  sub 
mit  ;  but  threatening  heavier  punishments  if  these  prove  inef 
fectual.  That  these  chastisements  are  also  called  punishments 
in  the  Scriptures,  we  do  not  deny ;  but  that  they  are  different, 
both  in  the  degree  and  design  of  them  from  capital  punishments, 
or  punishments,  properly  so  called,  we  affirm.  Even  in  this 
world,  when  his  creatures  have  proved  incorrigible,  God  has  made 
this  difference  in  the  character  of  his  punishments.  When  he 
destroyed  the  antediluvians,  Pharaoh  and  his  host,  the  inhabi 
tants  of  Sodom,  &c.,  he  did  not  inflict  a  disciplinary  punish 
ment,  that  is,  a  punishment  designed  for  their  good  ;  for  he  took 
them  away  in  his  wrath  from  the  place  of  repentance,  and  from 
the  means  of  reformation."  Merritt.  The  Bible  represents 
man  as  sinning  against  God  ;  but  Universalism  represents  him 
as  sinning  against  himself  only. 

Says  Mr.  Williamson,  "  God  brought  us  into  existence  of  his 
own  good  pleasure,  and  without  our  knowledge  or  consent ;  and 


282  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

he  is  bound,  by  the  principles  of  his  own  nature,  to  do  us  jus 
tice  ;  and  he  has  no  right,  in  the  nature  of  things,  to  do  an 
injury.  The  right  to  punish  for  sin,  has  its  foundation  in  the 
fact  that  sin  is  an  evil  and  bitter  thing,  and  its  practice  produc 
tive  of  evil  to  man."  Exp.  $  Def.,  p.  66.  Mr.  W.  informs 
us  that  he  speaks  this  with  reverence  ;  but  really,  we  should  not 
have  discovered  it  in  the  sentiment.  "  The  right  "  (!)  of  God 
to  punish  sin,  is  based  upon  the  fact  that  it  is  productive  of  evil 
to  man ;  and  such  punishment  looks  continually  at  the  good  of 
the  sufferer.  But  if  this  be  so,  then  the  law  was  made  exclu 
sively  in  reference  to  the  happiness  of  man,  irrespective  of  the 
Lawgiver  and  the  dignity  of  his  government,  which  presents  an 
anomaly  not  to  be  charged  upon  a  divine  and  perfect  administra 
tion.  In  accordance  with  this,  there  are  no  wastes  to  be 
repaired,  no  insulted  dignity  to  be  vindicated,  no  injurious  influ 
ence  to  be  counteracted,  except  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  sinner 
himself.  Man  is  diseased,  and  the  penalty  of  the  law  or  pun 
ishment  is  the  remedy  ;  and  yet  this  remedy  is  called  a  curse, 
and  furthermore,  Christ  came  to  redeem  man  from  this  curse,  or 
remedy  !  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law."  Gal.  3  : 13.  Now  what  is  the  curse  of  the  law  but  its 
penalty  ?  Says  Mr.  Skinner,  "  A  just  punishment  is  as  essen 
tial  for  our  welfare  as  anything  that  love  can  do  —  a  remission 
of  such  a  punishment  would  be  a  curse  instead  of  a  mercy." 
U.  Ill  $  Def.,  p.  250.  If  this  is  correct,  then  Christ  has 
redeemed  us  from  that  which  is  as  essential  for  our  welfare  as 
anything  that  love  can  do  !  Or,  in  other  words,  he  came  not  to 
bless  us,  but  to  curse  us  by  redeeming  us  from  the  curse.  Such 
is  the  theology  of  Universalism.  "The  law  curses  men,  but 
the  curse  blesses  them  !  "  The  Bible  speaks  of  certain  charac 
ters  "  who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction."  2 
Thess.  1 :  9.  With  what  is  the  sinner  here  threatened  ?  Why, 
shocking  to  relate,  it  is  that  which  is  as  essential  to  his  welfare 
as  anything  that  love  can  do  !  "  Much  more,  then,  being  now 
justified  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through 


Sec.   104.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  283 

him."  Rom.  5  :  9.  Wrath  of  course  means  punishment.  "We 
are  instructed,  then,  that  Christ  saves  us  from  a  merciful  remedy 
•for  our  spiritual  disease  !  "  Jesus  which  delivered  us  from  the 
wrath  to  come."  1  Thess.  1  : 10.  That  is,  he  has  delivered 
us  from  a  manifestation  of  the  love  and  mercy  of  God  !  God 
sends  strong  delusions  upon  those  "  who  believe  not  the  truth, 
but  obey  unrighteousness,"  and  for  what  purpose?  Is  it  to 
bless  and  save  them  ?  Inspiration  declares  that  the  design  of  such 
infliction  is  not  the  good  of  the  sufferer,  but  "  THAT  THEY 
ALL  MIGHT  BE  DAMNED."  (2  Thess.  2  : 10-12,)  and 
this  damnation  is  incurred  for  not  loving  "  the  truth,  that  they 
might  be  saved,"  (v.  10,)  and  thus  damnation  stands  opposed 
to  salvation,  instead  of  being  a  means  to  secure  it,  as  Universal- 
ism  asserts.  Now  if  all  punishment  looks  to  the  good  of  the 
sufferer,  and  is  not  a  curse  but  a  blessing,  then  God  promises 
the  blessing  of  damnation  upon  those  ' '  who  believe  not  the 
truth,  but  have  pleasure  in  unrighteousness  !  "  So  it  seems  that 
the  damnation  which  stands  opposed  to  salvation,  must  be  here 
after  numbered  among  the  ' '  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises  "  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak  !! 

The  assumption  that  all  punishment  is  designed  for  the  good 
of  the  sufferer,  is  completely  overthrown  by  this  passage  alone. 
Look  at  the  case  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host,  and  the  ungodly 
Sodomites  already  named,  also  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  Acts  5  : 
1-10.  These  wicked  people  were  hurried  into  eternity  in  con 
sequence  of  their  sins.  Was  this  designed  to  reform  them  ?  As 
well  might  we  say  that  a  man  was  hung  to  reform  him.  These, 
and  similar  inflictions,  have  taken  place  from  time  to  time  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  to  vindicate  the  government  of  God,  to  let 
the  world  know  that  he  is  not  insensible  to  passing  events,  and 
as  a  warning  to  the  living.  It  is  asserted  that  the  Jews  were 
punished  for  their  sins  when  their  city  was  destroyed  by  the 
Romans.  But  was  this  only  designed  to  reform  the  sufferers  ? 
Was  this  us  essential  for  their  welfare  as  anything  that  love  could 
do  ?  Was  the  Saviour  so  unwilling  that  they  should  be  blessed 


284  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

with  such  love  and  mercy,  as  to  weep  in  view  of  it?  Luke  19  : 
41.  Was  the  death  of  eleven  hundred  thousand  Jews  in  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  designed  only  to  reform  those  who  suffered 
it  ?  There  is  but  one  way  for  Universalists  to  meet  this,  and 
that  is  to  bring  forward  their  doctrine  that  death  ends  sin,  and 
that  all  shall  be  as  the  angels  of  God  in  the  future  ;  and  thus 
death  reformed  the  Jews  into  this  state.  But  how  will  this  har 
monize  with  the  idea  that  no  man  escapes  any  deserved  punish 
ment  ?  Is  it  replied  that  dying  was  their  punishment  ?  But 
how  could  that  be,  if  it  ended  their  sins,  and  introduced  them  to 
heaven  ?  And  then,  do  not  good  men  die  as  well  as  bad  ?  And 
then  again,  why  this  partialism  in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  as  seen 
in  the  fact  that  thousands  were  sent  off  to  heaven  during  the 
siege,  while  to  thousands  of  others,  no  more  guilty,  the  gate  of 
heaven  was  shut,  and  they  were  left  to  suffer  their  hell  in  this 
world  for  scores  of  years  ?  What  justice,  love,  or  mercy,  is  there 
in  this  ?  And  yet  this  is  Universalist  theology.  Is  it  replied 
that  this  was  a  national  punishment,  and  designed  to  reform  the 
Jews  as  a  nation  ?  But  why,  according  to  Universalist  notions, 
should  there  have  been  a  national  punishment  at  all  upon  that 
people  for  rejecting  the  Messiah  nearly  forty  years  after  he  left 
the  earth  ?  According  to  this  dogma,  every  man  is  punished  for 
his  individual  sins  as  soon  as  he  commits  them.  (Sec.  XLIX.) 
Nations  are  composed  of  individuals,  and  if  every  individual  is 
punished  to  the  full  extent,  then  the  whole  nation  is  punished  to 
the  full  extent.  Every  Jew,  then,  suffered  immediately  all  the 
punishment  that  was  due  him  for  rejecting  Christ,  and  thus  the 
whole  nation  had  been  punished.  And  yet  God  inflicts  a  pun 
ishment  upon  this  very  people,  involving  individual  suffering  for 
the  very  crime  for  which  they  had  all  been  punished  to  the  full 
extent,  nearly  forty  years  before  !  This  is  a  logical  result  of 
Universalist  teachings,  and  stands  directly  opposed  both  to  the 
mercy  and  justice  of  God.  We  deny  that  the  punishment  upon 
the  Jewish  nation  was  designed  to  reform  it ;  and  all  know  that 
if  it  was,  it  has  proved  a  total  failure  for  eighteen  hundred  years. 


SeC.   104.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  285 

The  passage  in  Luke  13  :  24-28,  Universalists  generally  refer  to 
the  Jerusalem  catastrophe.  Now  whether  this  is  referable  to  the 
future  state  or  to  Jerusalem,  it  matters  but  little  in  this  argu 
ment,  for  in  either  case  it  stamps  with  falsehood  the  notion  that 
all  punishment  is  designed  to  reform  the  sufferer.  Here  we  beg 
leave  to  introduce  Mr.  Whittemore  as  a  witness.  He  remarks 
upon  this  scripture  thus  :  "  '  Strive  to  enter  in,'  that  is,  do  not 
wait,  but  seek  now  to  become  my  disciples  ;  for  the  time  when 
you  will  have  the  opportunity  of  seeking  is  short ;  many  will 
seek  to  enter  into  my  kingdom  when  it  is  too  late,  and  therefore 
will  not  be  able  :  they  will  seek  when  they  see  the  calamities 
that  are  coming  upon  them ;  but  then  I  shall  have  risen  up  and 
shut  the  door,  and  their  time  for  gaining  admittance  will  be 
passed.  Now  all  this  is  literally  true  ;  for  when  Jerusalem  was 
destroyed,  the  Jews  ceased  to  enjoy  Gospel  privileges,  and  thus 
the  door  of  the  kingdom  was  closed  against  them."  Guide, 
p.  148. 

Mr.  W.  is  right,  unwittingly  right,  that  is,  so  far  as  the  prin 
ciple  of  the  divine  administration  is  concerned.  Now  look  at 
the  plight  into  which  Universalism  is  thrown  by  this.  The  Jews 
are  punished  in  this  instance  for  rejecting  the  gospel  kingdom, 
and  this  punishment  is  designed  to  reform  them  ;  and  yet  by 
this  very  punishment  they  are  put  beyond  the  possibility  of  re 
form;  for  says  Mr.  W.,  "  When  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  the 
Jews  ceased  to  enjoy  gospel  privileges,  and  thus  the  door  of  the 
kingdom  was  closed  against  them,"  and  so  closed,  that  even 
should  they  seek  to  enter  in  they  would  not  be  able  !  How  ser 
pentine  is  error.  We  are  instructed  in  this  passage,  that  when 
sinners  are  punished  in  consequence  of  having  spurned  the  offers 
of  mercy,  and  neglected  the  day  of  visitation,  God  does  not  in 
tend  their  reformation  and  happiness.  He  will  then  say,  it  is  too 
late,  "  I  know  you  not,"  "  depart  from  me  all  ye  workers  of 
iniquity."  Of  like  import  is  Prov.  1:24-28.  It  is  false, 
then,  that  all  punishment  is  designed  for  the  good  of  the  suffer 
er.  Again  :  "  The  sinner  is  represented  as  being  punished  ac- 


286  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

cording  to  his  works,  not  according  to  his  wants.  Every  man  is 
represented  as  receiving  '  according  to  that  he  hath  done  in  the 
body,'  and  not  according  to  that  which  is  necessary  to  save  him. 
Christ  says,  '  Behold  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward  is  with  me 
to  give  unto  every  man  according  as  his  works  shall  be,'  not  ac 
cording  to  what  is  necessary  to  bring  him  to  repentance. 
Again,  the  .sinner  is  said  to  be  cursed,  to  be  punished,  to  endure 
wrath,  wrath  without  mixture,  indignation,  fiery  indignation, 
to  perish,  to  be  destroyed,  &c.  Now  if  all  these  mean  no  more 
than  what  is  for  the  sinner's  good  —  no  more  than  what  is  es 
sential  for  his  best  interest  —  no  more  than  what  unmingled  mercy 
deals  out,  as  the  most  tender  physician  administers  a  bitter  med 
icine  to  a  patient,  there  were  never  greater  misnomers.  Then 
are  wrath  and  love  the  same ;  then  between  vengeance  and  mercy 
there  is  no  difference ;  then  is  punishment  the  means  of  salva 
tion  from  sin,  the  cause  of  punishment,  and  an  effect  proves  a 
remedy  for  its  own  cause ;  then  is  a  curse  a  blessing,  and  death 
leads  to  life !  "  Lee. 

If  all  punishment  is  designed  to  reform  the  sufferer,  then  it  is 
tjbe  will  of  God  that  all  should  reform  when  he  inflicts  it ;  and 
to  adopt  the  Universalist  views,  concerning  the  attributes  of  God 
and  the  absolute  character  of  his  will,  it  would  follow  that  all  do 
reform  when  punished  ;  for  who  has  not  heard  their  argument 
upon,  "  Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved."  Upon  this  it  is 
said  that  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  are  equal  to  his  will,  and 
therefore  all  will  be  saved  in  the  future. 

Now  this  argument  is  equally  valid  to  prove  that  all  men  are 
saved  from  sin  now,  for  none  can  doubt  but  God  wills  it,  espe 
cially  if  he  punishes  them  only  to  reform  them.  But  scripture  and 
matter  of  fact  contradict  this.  We  are  informed,  that  "  evil  men 
and  seducers  wax  worse  and  worse,  deceiving  and  being  de 
ceived."  2  Tim.  3  : 13.  Now  this  class  of  wicked  persons,  as 
Universalism  asserts,  were  punished  all  their  sins  deserved  on 
the  commission  of  every  sin,  and  yet  so  far  were  they  from 
being  reformed  that  they  waxed  worse  and  worse.  Look  at 


Sec.  104.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  287 

drunkenness  and  other  vices  of  our  age,  and  how  often  do  we  wit 
ness  an  illustration  of  this.  See  Isa.  1:5;  Jere.  5:3;  Rev. 
16:9.  We  introduce  the  insufficiency  of  punishment  to  reform, 
in  order  to  consider  it  in  connection  with  mercy.  When  we  as 
sert  that  if  there  is  no  remission  of  punishment  in  the  gospel 
plan,  then  there  is  no  mercy,  we  are  told  that  the  mercy  of  God 
is  seen,  not  in  withholding,  but  in  inflicting  the  punishment,  and 
that  to  withhold  punishment  would  be  a  curse  instead  of  a  mercy. 
In  contrasting  human  government  with  the  government  of  God, 
Mr.  Skinner  says  of  the  latter  :  "  God  has  all  wisdom  and 
power,  and  can  do  all  his  pleasure.  He  is  never  like  earthly 
governments,  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  choosing  between  two 
evils.  Hence,  if  one  is  doomed  to  endless  pain,  it  is  because 
God  desired  it.  It  is  no  removal  of  the  difficulty  to  say,  he  has 
threatened  endless  misery ;  and  if  the  sinner  will  incur  the  pen 
alty,  we  are  not  to  charge  the  blame  upon  God,  or  accuse  him  of 
vindictive  feelings  in  executing  his  threatening,  for  he  foresaw 
and  was  able  to  avoid  this  result ;  he  might  with  perfect  ease 
and  honor  to  himself,  have  so  arranged  his  government  as  to  se 
cure  the  obedience  and  happiness  of  all.  Consequently  if  there 
is  infinite  evil  in  the  penalty,  it  is  because  God  desired  it,  and 
had  infinite  malignity  towards  the  sinner."  U.  111.  and  Def., 
p.  195. 

This  argument  is  made  by  Mr.  S.  to  prove  that  endless  pun 
ishment  is  unjust  and  cruel,  and  that  all  punishment  is  amenda 
tory.  The  reasoning  is  sophistical,  and,  furthermore,  if  it  does 
anything  it  completely  overturns  the  discipliniary  punishment, 
for  which  Mr.  S.  is  contending.  Let  us  apply  it.  "  God  has 
all  wisdom  and  power,  and  can  do  all  his  pleasure.  He  is  never 
like  earthly  governments,  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  choosing 
between  two  evils.  Hence,  if  any  one  is  doomed  to  suffer  in 
this  world,  it  is  because  God  desired  it.  It  is  no  removal  of  the 
difficulty  to  say,  he  has  threatened  punishment  in  this  world,  and 
if  the  sinner  will  incur  the  penalty,  we  are  not  to  charge  the 
blame  upon  God,  or  accuse  him  of  vindictive  feelings  in  execu- 


288  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ting  Iris  threatenings,  for  he  foresaw  and  was  able  to  avoid  the 
result ;  lie  might  with  perfect  ease  and  infinite  honor  to  himself, 
have  so  arranged  his  government  as  to  secure  the  obedience  and 
happiness  of  all  in  this  world  without  punishment.  Consequent 
ly,  if  there  is  sin  and  punishment  in  the  world,  it  is  because  God 
desired  it,  and  exercised  malignity  towards  the  sinner."  It  will 
amount  to  nothing  to  say,  that  this  suffering  is  but  a  means  to 
secure  the  good  of  the  sinner,  for  Mr.  S.  has  told  us  that  God 
"is  never  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  choosing  between  two 
evils,"  and  of  course  is  not  under  the  necessity  of  punishing 
men  for  their  good,  for  he  could  have  so  arranged  his  govern 
ment  as  to  secure  that  good  without  it.  This  mode  of  argument 
is  adopted  by  the  whole  tribe  of  Universalists,  and  yet  it  lies 
with  all  its  force  against  their  cherished  notion  of  disciplinary 
punishment.  It  stands  opposed  to  matter  of  fact,  viz.:  the  pres 
ent  sufferings  of  our  race ;  therefore,  must  be  false.  On  this 
method  in  argument,  see  Sec.  CXIY. 

The  conclusion  from  this  argument  is,  that  God  punishes  sin 
ners  unnecessarily  in  this  world,  which  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
•unmerciful,  and  yet  Mr.  S.  talks  largely  in  his  book  about  the 
mercy  of  God  in  punishing  the  sinner  !  The  truth  is,  Univer- 
salism  drives  mercy  completely  out  of  the  divine  administration. 
Mr.  Skinner,  as  do  Universalists  generally,  resolves  all  the  ac 
tions  of  men  into  the  sovereignty  of  God.  He  says  :  "  The 
will  of  God  is  absolute.  The  will  of  kings  is  absolute ;  and 
God  is  the  king  of  kings  and  lord  of  lords.  He  does  all  things 
after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  Of  course  when  he  made 
man  and  gave  him  the  power  which  ho  possesses,  he  did  every 
thing  according  to  his  own  will.  It  will  avail  nothing  to  say, 
man  is  a  moral  agent ;  for  why  should  God  give  him  an  agency 
which  would  defeat  his  own  will?  This  would  be  planning 
against  himself.  Nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  an  expected 
result  of  a  voluntary  act,  proves  that  it  was  desired."  U.  111. 
andDef.,  p.  174. 

Here  we  learn  the  fatalism  of  Universalism,  "  whatever  is,  is 


Sec.  104.]  tJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE  BIBLE.  289 

right ;  "  everything  is  according  to  the  will  of  God.  (Sec. 
LXXXV.)  Speaking  of  the  mercy  of  God  to  man,  Mr.  S. 
adopts  the  following  definition  :  "  Mercy  has  been  defined  to  be 
that  benevolence,  mildness,  or  tenderness  of  heart,  which  dis 
poses  a  person  to  overlook  injuries,  or  treat  an  offender  better 
than  he  deserves."  p.  202. 

In  the  same  book  he  asserts  as  follows  :  "Justice  will  have 
all  its  demands ;  every  man  shall  suffer  to  the  full  extent  of  his 
deserts.  There  is  no  remission  of  punishment,  either  on  ac 
count  of  the  Saviour's  death,  or  the  sinner's  penitence."  p.  249. 

Mr.  S.,  by  these  views  concerning  the  will  of  God  and  pun 
ishment,  represents  all  the  leading  writers  in  the  order.  We  could 
give  the  same  in  substance  from  the  works  of  a  dozen  or  more 
in  our  possession.  Now  with  these  doctrines,  where  can  there 
possibly  be  any  mercy  in  the  system?  Mercy,  says  Mr.  S., 
"  is  to  treat  an  offender  letter  than  he  deserves"  Then  he 
says  :  "  Every  man  shall  suffer  to  the  full  extent  of  his  deserts" 
No  mercy,  then,  according  to  Mr.  S.'s  own  showing.  "We  have 
seen  that  punishment  often  fails  to  reform,  and  that  some  under 
its  infliction  wax  worse  and  worse.  Is  there  mercy  in  continuing 
to  punish  such,  when  God  not  only  knows  it  is  so,  but  willed  it 
should  be  so  ?  Observe  :  ' '  An  expected  result  of  a  voluntary 
act,  proves  that  it  was  desired.'"  There  can  be  no  mercy  in 
such  a  procedure.  But  why  should  the  sinner  be  punished  at 
all  for  wrong  doing  ?  He  has  not  been  guilty  of  wrong  doing 
unless  it  is  wrong  to  do  the  will  of  Gcd.  Mercy,  we  are  told, 
is  seen  in  punishing  the  sinner  to  reclaim  him.  Reclaim  him 
from  what  ?  Why  from  being  and  doing  just  as  God  wills  he 
should  be  and  do  !  So  distant  is  this  from  being  merciful,  that 
it  is  downright  cruelty.  By  this  strange  system  the  Deity  is 
arrayed  against  himself.  He  wills  the  sin,  and  wills  the  reforma 
tion  of  the  sinner,  and  inflicts  stripes  to  effect  it.  The  sinner 
waxes  worse  and  worse  under  the  stripes,  till  rotten  ripe  in  pol 
lution  he  falls  into  the  grave,  and  all  this  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  God !  With  these  views  of  Universalists  before  him,  the 


290  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

reader  can  judge  with  what  propriety  those  scriptures  are  pre 
sented  to  prove  Universalisui,  which  speaks  of  the  mercy  of 
God.  From  what  has  been  presented,  we  think  it  sufficiently 
clear  that  all  punishment  is  not  designed  to  reform  the  sufferer. 
We  should  be  careful  to  distinguish  between  God's  judicial  pun 
ishments  and  his  paternal  chastisements.  The  sinner  has  not 
sinned  against  himself,  but  against  God.  To  be  sure,  he  has 
brought  upon  himself  misery,  and  is  without  hope.  God's 
law  is  vindicated  in  his  final  punishment,  if  he  spurns  the  offers 
of  mercy  and  dies  in  his  sins.  It  is  equally  vindicated  through 
Christ,  if  he  repent  of  his  sins,  believe  and  obey  the  gospel,  and 
is  thus  saved  from  the  punishment  of  past  sins.  Horn.  4  :  25, 
26.  The  penalty  by  which  that  law  is  vindicated,  however,  is 
not  designed  for  the  final  benefit  of  the  offender.  God  has  in 
deed  appointed  its  proclamation  a  priori^  for  the  benefit  of  the 
governed,  by  the  prevention  of  crime.  In  this  sense  we  have 
no  objection  to  calling  it  reformatory,  as  its  proclamation  oper 
ates  as  a  warning  to  sinners.  But  it  is  not  inflicted,  a  posteriori 
for  the  final  benefit  of  those  who  disregard  the  divine  authority. 
It  avails  nothing  for  Universalists  to  present  an  array  of  scrip 
tures  to  prove  that  God  sometimes  inflicts  reformatory  punish 
ment,  and  that  some  have  been  benefitted  by  such  punishment. 
This  is  admitted. 

The  point  at  issue  is  this  :  Universalists  assert  that  all  pun 
ishment  is  for  the  good  of  the  punished.  This  we  deny,  and 
have  given  some  of  our  reasons  for  so  doing.  With  what  force 
the  reader  must  judge.  Many  more  might  be  added,  had  we 
space  to  spare.  See  Jere.  16:13;  13  : 14 ;  1  Sam.  6  : 19. 
Were  these  inflictions  designed  to  reform  the  sufferers  ? 

CV.  "  That  he  ty  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for 
every  man"  "  He  died  for  all"  "  Who  gave  himself  a  ran 
som  for  all."  Heb.  2  :  9  ;  2  Cor.  5  : 15  ;  1  Tim.  2  :  6. 

These,  and  other  texts  of  like  import,  are  in  frequent  use  in 
Universalist  writings  to  prove  their  doctrine.  By  their  use  the 


SeC.  105.]          UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OP   THE   BIBLE.  291 

construction  put  upon  them  is  this  :  "  Christ  tasted  death  that 
he  might  save  every  man  in  the  future  state."  "  He  died  for 
all,  and  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  secure  the  salvation  of 
all  men  in  the  future  world."  We  say  this  is  the  construction, 
because  they  would  not  think  of  quoting  them  to  prove  that  all 
are  saved  in  this  world.  It  is  in  the  future  state  that  all  are  to 
he  saved. 

Christ's  vicarious  atonement  is  discarded  by  the  order  general 
ly.  Says  Mr.  Skinner :  "  The  whole  system  of  vicarious  atone 
ment  is  false."  U.  Ill  and  Def.,  p.  120.  So  say  they  all, 
from  Father  Ballou  down  to  the  dimmest  satellite.  Indeed,  there 
is  not  a  leading  writer  among  them  who  admits  that  Christ's 
death  was  at  all  necessary  to  save  men  in  the  immortal  state ; 
and  yet  they  continue  to  use  these  scriptures  (  Guide,  p.  34)  in 
this  way,  because  there  is  universal  language  employed,  and  the 
people  can  be  deceived  by  it.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Ballou 
says  :  "  That  Christ  came  into  this  world  to  save  us  in  another, 
is  contrary  to  all  the  representations  found  in  the  scriptures." 
Lee.,  p.  14. 

Mr.  Whittemore  says  :  "  The  truth  is,  we  do  not  read  one 
word  in  the  Bible  about  saving  men  from  punishment  in  the  fu 
ture  state.  The  evils  from  which  Jesus  came  to  save  men  are 
in  this  world,  and  for  this  reason  he  came  into  this  world  to  save 
them."  Guide,  p.  254. 

And  yet  in  this  same  Guide,  Mr.  W.  uses  the  above  named 
scriptures  to  substantiate  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  all  in 
the  future  world,  because  Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom,  and 
died  for  all  in  this  world  !  Much  is  said  by  this  class  of  writers 
about  Christ's  saving  all  men.  But  is  there  any  such  thing  as 
Universal  salvation  by  Christ,  according  to  their  own  positions  ? 
"What,  according  to  these  men,  was  the  great  object  of  Christ's 
mission.  Mr.  Williamson  says  :  "  The  witness  does  not  go  into 
court  to  make  truth.  He  goes  there,  to  testify  to  what  is  already 
true.  So  Jesus,  in  our  view,  came  not  to  make  anything  true, 
that  was  not  so  before  ;  but  he  was  the  faithful  and  true  witness, 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

who  came  to  make  known  the  truth,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning, 
is  now,  and  ever  shall  be,  world  without  end.  He  came  to  re 
veal  the  character  and  purpose  of  God."  Exp.  of  U.,  p.  16. 

Says  Mr.  Skinner  :  "  Jesus  bore  witness  to  God's  rich  pro 
visions  of  grace  ;  to  that  eternal  life  which  he  had  }  repared  for 
the  world.  This  was  the  great  purpose  of  his  mission."  But 
when  did  he  prepare  this  for  the  world  ?  "  When  he  created  he 
prepared  and  secured  salvation  for  his  children."  17.  Ill  and 
Def-,  pp.  264,  265. 

Here  is  Universalist  theology.  Christ  never  came  to  save 
men  in  the  future  world,  for  they  were  never  lost,  or  in  danger 
of  being  lost  there,  for  their  salvation  was  prepared  and  secured 
when  God  created  them.  Christ's  death  and  mission  has  nothing 
to  do  with  procuring,  modifying,  or  in  any  way  affecting  the 
happiness  of  our  race  in  heaven.  All  would  have  been  thus 
saved  if  Christ  had  never  visited  our  world,  for  this  was  all 
made  sure  when  God  created  man,  and  "  Christ  came  not  to 
make  anything  true  that  was  not  go  before."  The  bliss  then  of 
the  future  state  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  Christlcss  thing. 
According  to  this  view,  Christ  is  not  the  author  of  eternal  sal 
vation  (Heb.  5  :  9)  to  any ;  and  the  holy  ones  in  heaven  (Rev. 
7  :  10)  are  in  no  way  indebted  to  Christ  for  their  glorified  state. 
It  will  be  seen  that  Universalism  denies  that  Christ  is  the 
Saviour  of  a  single  soul  in  heaven.  Yet  these  same  writers,, 
who  put  forth  these  sentiments,  produce  John  4  :  42,  "  Christ 
the  Saviour  of  the  world,"  to  prove  that  all  will  be  saved  in  the 
future  state  !  (Sec  XXIV,  also  Sec.  XXI.) 

We  are  informed  that  the  great  object  of  Christ's  mission  was 
to  testify  to  what  was  already  true ;  to  teach  the  resurrection 
and  remove  ignorance  and  sin  from  men  in  this  world.  Men 
are  ignorant  of  the  character  and  purposes  of  God.  The  Saviour 
came  to  enlighten  them,  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth.  Well, 
what  is  the  truth  ?  Why,  Universalism.  Nothing  else,  surely. 
Christ  came  to  remove  the  ignorance  of  Partialism  from  the 
world,  and  to  convice  them  by  his  resurrection  that  all  would  be 


Sec.   105.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  293 

raised  from  the  dead  to  a  blissful  state.  But  universal  salvation 
in  this  sense  has  not  been  secured  by  Christ,  for  millions  have 
died,  and  millions  are  now  living,  who  have  never  heard  of  him, 
and  there  are  millions  more  who  have  had  the  Bible,  containing 
the  history  of  his  mission,  who  could  never  learn  Universalism 
from  it.  And  as  for  sin,  all  know  that  men  are  not  universally 
saved  from  it  here,  and,  furthermore,  according  to  leading  Uni- 
versalists,  Christ  never  did,  nor  never  will,  save  a  single  individ 
ual  entirely  from  sin ;  for,  says  Mr.  Skinner,  "  None  can  be 
fully  saved  from  all  moral  evil  here."  U.  111.  and  Def.,  p.  261. 
Now  if  none  are  saved  from  all  moral  evil  here,  and  if  Christ 
came  to  save  none  in  the  future,  as  Mr.  Ballou  and  others  as 
sert,  then  he  saves  none  from  all  sin  any  where.  What  wretched 
work  these  crafty  yet  blind  guides  make  with  salvation.  UNI 
VERSAL  SALVATION  !  !  Salvation  from  what?  Not  from 
sin  in  this  world,  as  we  have  seen.  Is  it  from  ignorance  ?  No  ; 
for  darkness  covers  the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people. 
Is  it  from  future  suffering?  No;  for  none  have  ever  been  ex 
posed  to  this.  Is  it  from  punishment  in  this  world  ?  No ;  for 
every  one  must  suffer  the  full  penalty.  Is  it  from  sin  in  the 
world  to  come  ?  No  ;  for  there  is  no  condition  for  man  there, 
but  "  that  in  which  he  is  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven."  Is 
it  from  a  future  hell  ?  There  is  no  such  place,  say  these  men. 
Is  it  from  the  grave  ?  No  ;  for  the  popular  doctrine  with  Uni- 
versalists  now  is,  that  the  body  will  never  be  raised.  Is  it  from 
nonexistence  ?  Men  were  never  in  danger  of  this,  for  this  was 
guarded  against  at  the  creation,  as  Mr.  Skinner  asserts.  Says 
one  writer  :  "  I  know  of  no  salvation  for  them  if  their  system 
is  true,  unless  it  be  a  salvation  of  all  persevering  Universalists 
from  believing  the  gospel.  Such  a  system  may,  with  much  more 
propriety,  be  denominated  universal  damnation,  than  universal 
salvation.  It  universally  punishes  all,  and  universally  saves 
none."  Russell. 


294  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

CVI.  "  If  by  any  means  I  might  attain  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead."  Phil.  3  : 11. 

This  text  stands  directly  opposed  to  Universalist  yicws.  Paul 
lived  and  labored  that  he  might  secure  a  blissful  resurrection, 
and  thus  connects  his  present  conduct  with  his  future  destiny. 
The  only  writer  we  have  noticed  who  has  attempted  to  destroy 
the  force  of  this  passage,  is  Mr.  Harris.  After  quoting  John 
5  :  24,  he  says  :  "  This  refers  wholly  to  the  spiritual  change  or 
resurrection  wrought  in  believers,  by  the  power  of  the  gospel  in 
this  life  ;  "  and  he  will  have  it  that  the  text  under  consideration 
refers  to  the  same  resurrection.  Future  Life,  p.  178. 

We  are  to  believe,  then,  that  the  holy  apostle  Paul,  who  had 
been  favored  with  such  a  wonderful  conversion,  and  had  been 
raised  up  with  others  to  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ 
Jesus,  (Eph.  2:6,)  had  not  as  yet  experienced  a  spiritual  res 
urrection  by  the  power  of  the  gospel  in  this  life,  but  was  labor 
ing  to  attain  to  it !  What  an  exhorbitant  demand  Universalisra 
makes  upon  the  credulity  of  its  votaries  ! 

Dr.  Clarke  remarks  thus:  "  The  resurrection  of  the  dead.11 
That  is,  the  resurrection  of  those  who,  having  died  in  the  Lord, 
rise  to  glory  and  honor :  and  hence  St.  Paul  uses  a  peculiar 
word,  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  This 
glorious  resurrection,  and  perhaps  peculiarly  glorious  in  the  case 
of  martyrs,  is  that  to  which  St.  Paul  aspired.  The  word 
avazaffig  signifies  the  resurrection  in  general,  both  of  the  just 
and  of  the  unjust ;  £$apugaai$  may  signify  that  of  the  blessed 
only."  See  Sec.  XCI. 

C  VII.  "  But  if  ye  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father 
give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him  ?  "  Matt.  7:11. 

This  passage  is  sometimes  used  to  show  that  God,  who  is  much 
better  than  earthly  parents,  will  not  inflict  endless  punishment. 
The  sophistry  lies  in  representing  God  as  a  father  only,  and  as 


Sec.  107.]          UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  295 

being  influenced  by  the  same  motives  and  feelings  that  frail, 
erring,  earthly  fathers  are.  All  divine  truth  is  alike  immutable. 
God  is  not  only  declared  to  be  our  father  by  creation,  (Mai.  2  : 
10,)  but  it  is  revealed  with  equal  clearness  that  "  the  Lord  is 
our  judge,  the  Lord  is  our  lawgiver,  the  Lord  is  our  king." 
Isa  32  :  22.  God  stands  in  both  the  parental  and  regal  relation 
to  his  creatures.  But  the  great  effort  of  Universalism  is  to  de 
stroy  the  latter  relation,  and  to  exalt  the  former  to  human  imbe 
cility  !  (Sec.  XY.) 

Observe  :  This  bestowment  of  good  things  is  not  upon  all 
men,  but  upon  "  them  that  ask  him."  The  Saviour  in  this  and 
the  four  preceding  verses,  is  showing  the  willingness  of  God  to 
bestow  certain  blessings  in  answer  to  prayer,  a  doctrine  which, 
if  we  may  credit  some  of  their  leading  authors,  Universalists 
have  but  little  faith  in.  It  is  not  believed  by  them  that  he  is  a 
prayer  answering  God. 

Speaking  of  prayer,  Mr.  Skinner  says  :  "  The  change  which 
our  devotions  are  intended  to  make  is  upon  ourselves,  not  upon 
the  Almighty.  Their  chief  efficacy  is  derived  from  the  good 
dispositions  which  they  raise  and  cherish  in  the  human  soul." 
U.  111.  and  Def.,  p.  332. 

Again:  "  The  whole  effect  of  prayer  and  every  other  re- 
religious  duty,  must  be  upon  ourselves,  and  not  upon  the 
supreme  and  independent  Creator."  "  It  should  be  considered 
a  great  privilege,  as  well  as  a  great  duty.  Not,  let  it  be  re 
peated,  with  the  view  that  it  will  effect  any  sort  of  change  in  the 
Supreme  Being,  in  his  disposition,  in  his  will,  or  in  his  pur 
poses."  U.  Manual,  pp.  27,  39. 

In  keeping  with  these  views,  Mr.  Ballou  says  :  "  The  neces 
sity  and  utility  of  religion,  according  to  common  opinion,  is,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  obtain  or  secure  the  divine  favor ;  and  on  the 
other,  to  be  screened  from  the  displeasure  of  the  Almighty. 
But  if  our  deductions  are  allowed  to  stand,  it  is  very  clear,  that 
the  divine  favor  can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost."  Exp.  of  U., 
p.  28. 


• 

296  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

All  must  see  that  such  a  view  makes  prayer  utterly  useless, 
so  far  as  the  divine  being  is  concerned.  He  answers  no  prayer, 
for  prayer  effects  no  change  at  all  in  his  conduct  towards  us, 
but  is,  hi  its  effect,  wholly  confined  to  ourselves.  How  com 
pletely  is  the  Saviour  contradicted  by  these  sentiments.  Christ 
says  that  our  heavenly  Father  gives  good  things  to  them  that  ask 
him.  Not  so,  say  these  men  ;  the  man  who  asks  gives  the  good 
things  to  himself ! 

Universalist  views  being  correct,  Elijah  must  have  found  him 
self  in  a  sad  condition  in  his  contest  with  the  prophets  of  Baal. 
He  builds  his  altar,  puts  on  the  wood,  and  the  bullock  cut  in 
pieces,  and  pours  on  his  barrels  of  water.  Now,  for  the  demon 
stration  to  confound  Baal's  prophets,  and  to  show  that  there  is  a 
God  in  Israel.  Elijah  prays  thus  :  "  Lord  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  of  Israel,  let  it  be  known  this  day  that  thou  art  God 
in  Israel,  and  that  I  am  thy  servant.  Hear  me,  0  Lord,  hear 
me  ;  that  this  people  may  know  that  thou  art  the  Lord  God." 
1  Kings  18  :  36,  37.  God  answered  the  prayer;  the  fire  came 
down,  consumed  the  materials,  and  licked  up  the  water  in  the 
trench,  and  the  people  cried,  "The  Lord  he  is  the  God!  the 
Lord  he  is  the  God ! ' ' 

This  is  false,  says  Universalism,  for  "the  whole  effect  of 
prayer  must  be  upon  ourselves,"  and  God  was  no  more  moved 
by  Elijah's  prayer,  than  Baal  was  moved  by  the  prayers  of  his 
blind  worshipers. 

Christ  uses  the  parable  of  the  unjust  judge  (Luke  18  :  1-8) 
to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  duty  of  prayer.  The  judge  is  not 
disposed  at  first  to  grant  the  widow  her  request,  but  she  con 
tinues  to  importune,  and  he  changes  his  purpose  and  bestows  the 
favor  she  asks.  A  bad  illustration,  says  Universalism,  for  the 
"  whole  effect  of  prayer  must  be  upon  ourselves."  A  correct 
illustration  would  be  this  :  the  woman  is  improved  somewhat  by 
her  own  effort,  while  the  judge  is  as  unmoved  by  her  entreaties 
as  a  stone,  neither  changing  his  purpose  or  granting  her  request. 
This  illustrates  the  Universalist  view  of  prayer,  as  all  will  see. 


Sec.  107.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  297 

And  thus  this  dogma,  as  ever,  is  arrayed  against  Christ.  So  we 
might  go  on  through  the  Bible  and  show  the  antagonism  of  Uni- 
versalism  to  its  teachings  concerning  prayer. 

"  The  divine  favor  can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost/'  says 
Mr.  Ballou.  Universalist  ministers  stand  up  before  the  people 
and  profess  to  ask  favors  of  God.  What  is  meant  by  it  ?  Are 
they  sincere  ?  Do  they  believe  he  will  grant  favors,  or  is  it  only 
to  be  seen  of  men  ?  With  such  views,  what  a  farce  is  a  Univer 
salist  prayer  !  The  Bible  teaches  that  God  bestows  blessings  in 
answer  to  prayer.  Universalism  teaches  that  prayer  is  a  self- 
stimulating  and  re-active  process  of  man  ;  or  in  other  words, 
that  men  bless  themselves  by  praying.  Quite  a  difference. 

That  the  natural  tendency  of  pure  sentiment,  offered  with 
sincere  and  reverential  feelings,  is  salutary  to  some  extent  upon 
both  those  who  pray  and  those  who  listen,  we  readily  admit. 
But  the  position,  that  this  is  all  of  prayer,  is  highly  infidel  in  its 
character,  contradicting  the  Bible  and  the  experience  of  good 
men  in  all  ages  of  the  church.  With  such  views  before  us, 
from  their  leading  men,  we  are  not  surprised  to  hear  Mr.  Smith, 
who  was  a  popular  preacher  of  the  order  for  twelve  years,  assert 
as  follows  : 

' '  No  minister  of  the  sect,  whom  I  ever  knew,  maintained 
family  prayer.  I  have  known  many  to  ridicule  the  custom,  but 
no  one  to  observe  it.  I  have  often  been  in  families  of  the 
principal  advocates  of  Universalism,  and  passed  the  night. 
They  have  been  at  my  house.  I  found  no  family  devotions  at 
their  dwellings.  They  expressed  no  surprise  at  not  finding  an 
altar  at  my  fireside." 

Persons  have  lived  in  the  families  of  some  of  their  leading 
ministers  for  months,  and  never  heard  the  voice  of  prayer  in 
their  houses.  When  their  brethren  in  the  ministry  called  to 
pass  the  night,  they  abounded  with  witty  anecdotes  about  the 
Partialists,  but  never  prayed. 

Now  how  has  it  been  with  Universalists  ?     Have  they  consid 
ered  these  sinful  neglects?    No.     They  have  boasted  of  them 
15 


TTNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

as  virtues.  Their  prayers  were  secret,  such  as  Christ  enjoined  ; 
they  were  not  like  the  old  Pharisees,  praying,  joining  church, 
fasting,  and  all  that,  to  be  seen  of  men.  One  would  have  sup 
posed  that  persons,  who  had  said  so  much  about  praying  to  be 
seen  of  men,  would  have  had  no  public  prayers  at  all,  and  thus 
evinced  consistency.  But  these  men,  notwithstanding  all  they 
have  said  about  praying  to  be  seen  of  men,  are  seen  standing 
praying  in  their  pulpits  from  time  to  time ;  but  this  has  doubtless 
been  much  against  their  inclination,  and  would  have  been  aban 
doned  before  now,  if  public  opinion  would  have  borne  them  out 
in  it.  A  few  years  since,  Robert  Smith,  a  Universalist  preacher, 
an  editor  in  Hartford,  Conn.,  gave  out  in  public  that  he  should 
pray  no  more  when  he  conducted  public  service.  He  contended 
that  such  prayer  was  wrong  ;  that  offering  prayer  in  connection 
with  a  sermon,  was  a  tribute  to  Orthodoxy  that  he  was  unwilling 
to  pay.  He  offered  a  reward  of  one  thousand  dollars  to  any  man 
who  would  prove  that  the  Saviour  ever  made  a  public  prayer. 
Mr.  Grosh,  of  Utica,  an  editor  and  minister  in  the  order,  says 
he  preached  several  months  without  public  prayers. 

Since  quite  a  number  of  their  ministers  have  renounced  the 
doctrine,  and  Mr.  Smith's  book  has  been  so  extensively  circulated, 
showing  the  blighting  influence  of  Universalism,  the  leaders 
have  found  it  necessary  to  change  their  course  somewhat.  Poli 
cy  dictates  that  the  denomination  should  appear  more  pious. 
Prayer  books  have  been  published,  and  a  part  of  their  ministers, 
and  a  few  of  their  people,  have  been  induced  to  set  up  some 
thing  like  family  worship.  It  seems,  however,  that  Mr.  Cobb 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  "  lifting  up  his  voice  in  thanksgiving 
and  praise  "  in  his  family,  and  after  Mr.  Smith's  exposure,  he 
published  this  to  the  world  in  his  paper,  which  called  forth  a 
rebuke  from  Mr.  Drew,  editor  of  the  Banner,  as  follows  : 

"We  do  not  suppose  this  is  a  very  unusual  thing  amongst 
Universalist  ministers;  but  all  do  not  choose  to  publish  it. 
Some,  it  may  be,  have  so  literally  practised  upon  the  precept 
of  Jesus  requiring  secret  prayer,  as  to  have  kept  their  practice 


Sec.  107.]  UNI  VERBALISM    NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  299 

so  much  of  a  secret  that  the  world  has  not  known  it."    Banner, 
Jan.  16,  1841. 

Mr.  Drew,  it  seems,  was  one  of  those  modest  persons,  who 
have  ever  been  very  secret  about  their  prayers  !  Being  greatly 
devoted  to  the  interest  of  the  order,  however,  and  the  leaders 
judging  it  expedient  to  appear  more  pious,  "  before  men,"  he 
cheerfully  sacrifices  his  modesty,  commences  repeating  the  Lord's 
prayer  on  the  Sabbath  in  his  house,  and  tacitly  sanctions  his 
Bro.  Cobb's  Phariseeism,  by  publishing  to  the  world  his  own 
prayers,  as  follows : 

l(  Every  Sabbath  day,  when  we  are  at  home,  and  at  an  hour 
when  we  are  not  officiating  in  the  church,  we  gather  our  family 
of  little  ones  around  the  domestic  hearth-stone,  read  the  sacred 
scriptures  in  course,  each  reading  a  portion,  say  the  Lord's 
prayer  together,  and  then  gather  around  the  organ,  and  with 
heart  and  voice,  raise  our  united  voices  together,  in  praise  to  him 
who  is  the  God  and  Father  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth." 
Banner,  Feb.  4,  1843. 

How  long  Mr.  D.  continued  this  we  are  not  informed.  Here 
is  Phariseeism,  with  a  witness  !  After  all  the  ridicule  they  have 
heaped  upon  others,  there  is  no  class  of  men  who  make  a  more 
ostentatious  display  of  their  religious  doings  than  do  these  same 
Universalists. 

A  few  years  since  great  efforts  were  made  to  get  up  prayer 
meetings  in  the  denomination  ;  but  with  their  views  of  prayer, 
these  doubtless  appeared  so  farcical  to  themselves,  as  well  as  to 
others,  that  in  most  cases  they  have  been  abandoned,  and  in 
some  instances  praise  meetings  (!)  have  taken  their  place,  the 
exercises  consisting  chiefly  in  praising  Universalism  and  de 
nouncing  evangelical  truth.  Indeed,  if  God,  as  Universalism 
asserts,  is,  from  his  own  nature,  necessarily  impelled  to  acts  of 
love  towards  all  his  creatures,  whatever  their  character,  where 
can  be  the  necessity  of  prayer  ?  We  might  as  well  pray  for 
him  to  be  omnipotent,  or  omniscient,  as  for  him  to  be  gracious. 
Universalism  is  a  prayerless  religion,  and  its  influence  in  this  re- 


300  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

spect  is  seen  in  every  community  where  it  exists.     On  praying 
for  all  men,  see  Sec.  LXXXII. 

C  VIII.  "  For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven  ;  from  whence 
also  we  look  for  the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who 
shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto 
his  glorious  body."  Phil.  3  :  20,  21. 

This  passage  stands  directly  opposed  to  the  notion  that  the 
body  is  never  to  be  raised,  and  must,  if  possible,  be  destroyed 
in  some  way.  The  last  effort  we  have  met  with  to  do  this,  is 
found  in  Harris's  "  Future  Life."  He  says,  "  The  apostle  does 
not  say  that  Christ  would  change  "  vile  bodies,7'  but  "  vile 
body,"  which  was  the  church  ;  for  the  apostle  has  told  us  that 
the  church  is  the  body  of  Christ."  p.  192. 

Christ's  body  then,  the  church,  is  the  "  vile  body"  meant  by 
the  apostle,  and  when  Christ  comes  from  heaven  he  is  to  change 
his  own  body  and  make  it  like  his  own  body  !  !  Well,  who  be 
long  to  this  church?  All  men,  of  course,  if  Universalism  is 
the  truth,  and  Mr.  Ballou,  in  a  sermon  on  Eph.  5  : 25-27,  has 
asserted,  "  that  all  men  belong  to  the  church  of  Christ."  Se- 
lect  Ser.,  p.  133. 

But  when  is  Christ  to  come  and  change  his  vile  body  ?  Mr. 
Harris,  on  the  same  page,  states  that  it  was  to  be  changed  at  the 
coming  of  Christ  in  his  kingdom  ;  and  on  page  190  he  quotes 
Bush,  to  show  that  his  "  second  coming  commenced  with  that 
new  order  of  things,  which  is,  in  the  main,  to  be  dated  from  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  —  which  is  to  be  considered  as  continu 
ing  through  the  whole  period  of  the  dispensation." 

Admitting  Mr.  Ballou's  position,  that  the  whole  human  race 
compose  the  church,  this  interpretation  of  the  text  amounts  to 
the  idea,  that  the  whole  human  race  are  to  be  changed  and  made 
like  Christ's  glorious  body,  under  the  dispensation  which  com 
menced  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  So  the  millions  of 
our  race  who  had  died  and  were  exalted  to  bliss,  prior  to  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem,  are  to  be  changed  with  the  rest  of  the 


SeC.   109.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  301 

vile  body  subsequent  to  that  event ! !  Paul  must  mean  the 
church,  because  he  says  our  vile  body,  and  not  vile  bodies. 
What  paltry  quibbling  this.  The  honest  minded  reader  will  see 
at  a  glance  the  character  this  work  gives  Universalism  and  its 
advocates. 

CTX.  "Abraham  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  the 
everlasting  God."  Gen.  21  :  33. 

The  Hebrew  olam,  and  Greek  aion,  aionios,  have  been  dis 
cussed  so  much  that  they  have  become,  to  some  extent,  natural 
ized  to  the  mind  of  the  common  English  reader,  especially  so, 
to  those  acquainted  with  the  controversy  these  words  have  elicit 
ed.  Most  have  witnessed,  too,  with  what  an  air  of  triumph  the 
fact  is  stated,  by  Universalists,  that  the  word  everlasting  is  ap 
plied  to  things  of  limited  duration,  as,  the  priesthood  of  Aaron, 
the  hills,  and  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan  by  the  Is 
raelites.  The  priesthood  has  passed  away,  the  hills  are  not  end 
less,  and  the  seed  of  Abraham  have  long  since  ceased  to  possess 
the  land  of  Canaan ;  therefore,  the  word  everlasting  does  not 
mean  endless.  Our  limits  forbid  an  extensive  article  upon  this 
subject.  A  few  hints  only  will  be  given,  just  to  furnish  the 
reader  a  clue  to  the  sophistries  employed  to  destroy  the  true 
meaning  of  language. 

If  everlasting  in  its  true  or  original  sense  does  not  mean  end 
less,  because  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  that  which  ceases  to  exist, 
then  by  the  same  process  in  argument  it  cannot  mean  less  than 
endless,  because  it  is  applied  to  the  existence  of  God,  which  is 
absolutely  endless,  as  all  admit.  We  see,  then,  that  the  sense 
of  the  word  is  not  fixed  by  the  subject.  The  subject  only  de 
termines  whether  it  is  used  in  a  proper  or  an  accommodated 
sense,  in  that  particular  instance.  No  point  has  been  more 
clearly  shown,  by  those  able  men  who  have  controverted  Univer- 
salist  views  upon  this  subject,  than  this,  viz.,  that  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  Greek  noun  aion,  and  its  corresponding  adject- 


302  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ive  aionios,  is  endless.     Dr.  Clarke,  on  the  text  at  the  head  of 
this  sectio  i,  remarks  as  follows  : 

"  The  Septuagint  renders  the  words  Theos  aionios,  the  ever 
existing  God.  From  this  application  of  both  words,  we  learn 
olam  and  aion  originally  signified  ETERNAL,  m  duration  without 
end.  Aion,  according  to  Aristotle,  and  a  higher  authority  need 
not  be  sought,  is  compounded  of  aei,  always  an  on,  being. 
Hence  we  see  that  no  words  can  more  forcibly  express  the  grand 
characteristics  of  eternity  than  these.  It  is  that  duration  which 
is  always  existing,  still  running  ON,  but  never  runs  OUT.  In 
all  languages,  words  have,  in  process  of  time,  deviated  from 
their  original  acceptations,  and  have  become  accommodated  to 
particular  purposes,  and  limited  to  particular  meanings.  This 
has  happened  both  to  the  Hebrew  olam,  and  the  Greek  aion; 
they  have  been  both  used  to  express  a  limited  time,  but  in  gen 
eral  a  time  the  limits  of  which  are  unknown  ;  and  thus  a  pointed 
reference  to  the  original  ideal  meaning  is  still  kept  up.  Those 
who  bring  any  of  these  terms,  in  an  accommodated  sense,  to 
favor  a  particular  doctrine,  must  depend  upon  the  good  graces  of 
their  opponents  for  permission  to  use  them  in  this  way.  For  as 
the  real  grammatical  meaning  of  both  words  is  eternal,  and  all 
other  meanings  only  accommodated  ones,  sound  criticism  in  all 
matters  of  dispute,  concerning  the  import  of  a  word  or  term, 
must  have  recourse  to  the  grammatical  meaning,  and  to  the  ear 
liest  and  best  writers  of  the  language,  and  will  determine  all  ac 
commodated  meanings  by  this  alone.  Now  the  first  and  best 
writers  in  both  these  languages,  apply  olam  and  aion  to  express 
eternal,  in  the  proper  meaning  of  that  word ;  'and  this  is  their 
proper  meaning  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  when  applied 
to  God,  bis  attributes,  his  operations,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  ends  for  which  he  performs  them,  for  whatsoever  he  doeth  it 
shall  be  forever.  The  word  is  with  the  same  strict  propriety 
applied  to  the  duration  of  the  rewards  and  punishments  in  a  future 
state,  and  the  argument  that  pretends  to  prove,  and  it  is  only 
pretence,  that  in  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  the  worm 


Sec.  109.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  303 

shall  die,  and  the  fire  shall  be  quenched,  will  apply  as  forcibly  to 
the  state  of  happy  spirits,  and  as  fully  prove  that  a  point  in 
eternity  shall  arrive,  when  the  repose  of  the  righteous  shall  be 
interrupted,  and  the  glorification  of  the  children  of  God  have  an 
eternal  end." 

In  keeping  with  Dr.  Clarke's  views  are  the  words  of  the  Saviour, 
Matt.  25  : 46  :  "  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  The  word  aionion  is  here 
rendered  everlasting  in  the  first  member  of  the  text,  and  eternal 
in  the  second.  Now,  if  in  the  first  member  it  is  used  in  a  lim 
ited  sense,  then  it  must  be  in  the  second,  which  limits  the  bliss 
of  the  rio-hteous.  Mr.  Whittemore  seeing  this,  has  resorted  to 
a  most  wretched  perversion,  which  is,  that  the  "eternal  life" 
means  the  spiritual  life  of  the  believer  in  this  world,  and  does 
not  refer  to  the  future  state.  To  be  righteous  in  a  religious 
sense,  which  is  the  sense  here,  is  to  possess  spiritual  life,  as  all 
must  admit.  The  Saviour,  then,  is  made  to  utter  the  following  : 
"  The  spiritually  alive  in  this  world,  shall  go  into  spiritual 
life  in  this  world !  "  Such  senseless  tautology  is  not  to  be 
charged  upon  the  divine  Saviour.  None  but  a  man  who  had  a 
bad  cause  to  sustain,  would  thus  pervert  the  words  of  Christ. 
The  Saviour  in  this  passage  instructs  us  that  the  bliss  of  the 
righteous,  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be  equal  in 
duration. 

For  Dr.  Clarke's  remarks  upon  this  text,  and  Dr.  Hunting 
don's  rebuke  to  Universalists  for  trifling  with  language  expres 
sive  of  endless  duration,  see  Sec.  XLI. 

Mark  3:  29:  "But  he  that  blasphemeth  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  dam 
nation."  Here  forgiveness  and  damnation  are  set  over  against 
each  other.  Hence,  if  a  man  is  never  forgiven,  he  must  be 
damned  endlessly,  and  thus  the  unforgiven  are  in  danger  of  eter 
nal  damnation.  Another  evangelist  (Luke  12  : 10)  says  of  this 
blasphemy,  "  it  shall  not  be  forgiven."  Now  an  aionon  pun 
ishment  for  a  sin  that  hath  never  forgiveness,  and  that  shall  not 


304  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

be  forgiven,  must  of  necessity  be  endless  in  duration.  There  is 
no  avoiding  this. 

It  is  often  said  by  Universalists,  that  the  term  endless  is 
nowhere  applied  to  punishment  in  the  Bible.  But  why  this 
stress  upon  the  word  endless  ;  why  prefer  this  word  to  everlast 
ing,  eternal,  forever  and  ever,  which  are  the  strongest  terms  used 
in  reference  to  a  future  state  ?  The  obvious  reason  is,  because 
the  Bible  employs  them  to  express  the  duration  of  the  suffer 
ings  of  the  wicked.*  The  term  endless  is  nowhere  in  the  scrip 
tures  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  happiness  of  heaven.  The  word  is  used  by 
the  apostle  in  reference  to  Christ's  priesthood,  (Heb.  7  : 16)  : 
"  Who  is  made,  not  after  the  law  of  carnal  commandment,  but 
after  the  power  of  an  endless  life."  But  it  is  not  said  that  any 
shall  have  this  life.  But  suppose  endless,  the  word  of  their 
choice,  was  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  connected  with  the  punish 
ment  of  the  wicked,  would  it  stand  before  their  criticisms  with 
the  license  they  take  ?  By  no  means ;  for  they  could  pervert  it 
with  the  same  ease  that  they  now  do  the  term  everlasting,  for 
the  term  endless,  too,  is  used  in  a  limited  sense.  Timothy  is 
cautioned  against  "endless  genealogies."  1  Tim.  1 :4. 

It  discovers  either  great  ignorance  or  depravity  to  make  such 
a  demand  for  the  term  endless  in  connection  with  punishment, 
when,  if  it  were  found,  its  true  sense  would  no  more  be  admit- 
ed  by  Universalists,  than  the  true  sense  of  everlasting  is  now 
admitted  by  them.  And  if  the  term  endless  is  necessary  to 
prove  endless  punishment,  is  it  not  equally  so  to  prove  endless 
salvation  ?  We  have  only  to  apply  their  own  rules  in  argument 
to  the  bliss  of  heaven,  to  deprive  it  of  its  endless  duration.  Is 
it  said  that  such  scriptures  as,  "  There  shall  be  no  more  death," 

*  Our  opponents  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  was  pop 
ular  with  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  what  word  or  words  were  in 
use  among  them,  to  express  the  duration  of  punishment,  if  those  under 
consideration  were  not  used  for  that  purpose  ?  Universalists  would  confer 
a  favor  by  giving  information  upon  this  point. 


Sec.    109.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  305 

(Rev.  21  :  4,)  "  Neither  can  they  die  any  more,"  (Luke  20, 
36,)  prove  endless  bliss  ?  We  reply,  that  these  no  more  prove 
endless  bliss,  than,  "Shall  not  see  life,"  (John  3:36,)  "I 
will  love  them  no  more,"  (Hosea  9  :  15,)  "  Will  show  them  no 
favor,"  (Isa.  27  :  11,)  "  Shall  not  be  forgiven,"  (Luke  12: 
10,)  disprove  it.  Mr.  Morse,  a  Universalist  minister,  as  quoted 
by  Mr.  Lee,  p.  192,  says,  "  The  word  aionios  is  equivalent  to 
long,  lasting,  or  everlasting."  The  design  of  this  was  to  make 
the  impression,  that  the  word  is  as  correctly  rendered  by  long  as 
by  everlasting,  which  is  false.  The  absurdity  of  this  rendering 
will  be  seen  by  applying  it  to  John  3  :  15,  "  Whosoever  belie veth 
in  him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  No  Univer 
salist  will  contend  that  this  eternal  life,  which  is  conditioned  on 
believing,  is  future  bliss,  for  our  belief  or  unbelief  can  neither 
gain  nor  forfeit  that,  according  to  their  system. 

Now  if  "  eternal  life,"  in  this  text,  may  with  propriety  be 
rendered  "  long  life,"  then  it  speaks  this  :  "  Whosoever  believ- 
eth  in  Christ  shall  not  perish,  but  have  long  life  in  this  world  !  " 
But  is  it  true  that  a  belief  in  Christ  secures  long  life  in  this 
world  ?  So  far  is  this  from  the  truth  that  thousands  have  short 
ened  their  days  by  believing  in  Christ.  Stephen  believed  in 
Christ.  Did  he  have  long  life  in  this  world  ?  We  might  intro 
duce  a  host  of  texts  to  show  up  this  assumption.  No  more 
need  be  said  upon  this  point. 

Sometimes,  when  it  serves  their  turn,  Universalists  will  have 
it  that  aionios  may  be  properly  rendered  by  age-lasting  •  hence, 
we  read  in  their  books  of  age-lasting  correction,  &c.  Let  us 
apply  this  to  2  Cor.  4  : 18  :  "  We  look  not  at  things  which  are 
seen,  but  at  things  which  are  not  seen :  for  the  things  which  are 
seen  are  temporal :  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eter 
nal,"  i.  e.,  age-lasling.  Things  which  are  only  age-lasting  are 
of  limited  duration,  and  therefore  must  be  temporary.  The 
passage,  then,  is  reduced  to  the  following  nonsense  :  "  We  look 
not  at  the  things  which  are  seen,  for  they  are  temporal ;  but  we 
look  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen,  for  they  are  temporary  !  " 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Did  the  apostle  mean  this  ?  Nothing  is  more  obvious  than  that 
he  meant  endless  duration  by  the  term  under  consideration.  The 
scriptures  denote  the  brevity  of  human  life  by  such  expressions 
as  "grass,"  "  weaver's  shuttle,"  "shadow,"  "  vapor,"  "  few 
days,"&c.  But  when  they  speak  of  punishment,  they  never 
assert  that  its  duration  is  as  the  grass,  weaver's  shuttle,  shadow, 
vapor,  or  a  few  days  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  find  the  strong 
terms,  everlasting,  eternal,  and  forever,  are  applied  to  it,  As 
we  have  seen,  some  who  deny  future  punishment  have  asserted 
that  aionios  is  equivalent  to  long,  age-lasting.  They  assert,  too, 
that  none  escape  the  punishment  due  for  their  sins.  To  show 
this  in  its  true  light,  let  us  suppose  a  case.  A  man  dies  in  the 
act  of  wilful  murder.  Now,  if  there  is  no  future  punishment, 
when  and  where  does  he  suffer  long,  or  age-lasting  punishment 
for  that  last  sin  ?  Is  "  eternal  damnation,"  "  everlasting  punish 
ment,"  inflicted  in  the  brief  space  of  human  life,  whiclfis  as  the 
shadow  or  vapor  ?  Is  it  inflicted  in  a  few  years,  months,  days, 
or  it  may  be  a  few  seconds  after  the  sinful  act,  or  even,  as  Mr. 
Whittemore  will  have  it,  (Sec.  XLTX,)  while  sin  is  being  com 
mitted  ?  No  more  need  be  said  to  show  the  violent  wresting  of 
the  scriptures  upon  this  point. 

Speaking  of  the  terms  in  question,  Prof.  Stuart  inquires : 
"  If,  then,  the  words  aion  and  aionios  are  applied  sixty  times 
(which  is  the  fact)  in  the  New  Testament,  to  designate  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  future  happiness  of  the  righteous ;  and  some 
twelve  times  to  designate  the  continuance  of  the  future  misery 
of  the  wicked  ;  by  what  principles  of  interpreting  language  does 
it  become  possible  for  us  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  aion  and 
aionios  have  the  same  sense  in  both  cases  ?  "  Again  he  says, 
"  The  result  seems  to  me  to  be  plain,  and  philofogically  and 
exegetically  certain.  It  is  this  :  either  the  declarations  of  the 
scriptures  do  not  establish  the  facts,  that  God,  and  his  glory,  and 
praise,  and  happiness  are  endless  ;  nor  that  the  happiness  of  the 
righteous  in  a  future  world  is  endless;  or  else  they  establish 
the  fact,  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  endless.  The 


Sec.   110.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  307 

whole  stand  or  fall  together.  There  can,  from  the  very  nature 
of  antithesis,  be  no  room  for  rational  doubt  here,  in  what  man 
ner  we  should  interpret  the  declarations  of  the  sacred  writers. 

WE  MUST  EITHER  ADMIT  THE  ENDLESS  MISERY  OF  HELL,  OR  GIVE 
UP  THE  ENDLESS  HAPPINESS  OF  HEAVEN."  Exeg.  Essays,  pp. 

56,  62. 

Blank  Atheism,  or  no  future  life  whatever  for  any  of  our 
race,  is  a  clear  and  logical  result  of  Universalist  arguments  upon 
future  punishment. 

CX.  "  The  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature  waitethfor 
the  manifestations  of"  &c.  Rom.  8  :  19-23. 

The  following,  with  the  exception  of  the  application  of  Mr. 
Whittemore's  rale  at  the  close,  has  been  kindly  furnished  for 
this  work  by  Rev.  Charles  Hunger. 

"Does  this  passage  teach  the  final  salvation  of  all  men? 
This  is  the  question  now  at  issue.  The  answer  depends  wholly 
upon  '  the  creature,1  and  its  deliverance.  What  the  creature  is, 
and  what  its  deliverance,  must  be  determined  by  the  essential 
conditions  of  the  entire  passage  and  the  context.  Taken  in  the 
order  of  the  apostle,  they  seem  to  be  these  : 

"  1.  The  creature  waiteth  in  earnest  expectation  for  the  man- 
ifestions  of  the  sons  of  God.  Ver.  19. 

"2.  It  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  in  hope. 
Ver.  20. 

"3.  It  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into 
the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  Ver.  21. 

"  4.  The  creature  is  not  the  same  as  the  sons  of  God,  but  a 
thing  or  class  distinct.  The  last  statement  is  important.  If  the 
creature  is  the  same  as  the  sons  of  God,  then  the  passage  refers 
only  to  these,  and  of  course  has  nothing  to  do  with  Universal- 
ism.  If  it  is  not  the  same,  then  this  fact  is  a  very  important 
condition  or  feature,  which  must  be  regarded  in  the  interpreta 
tion.  The  distinction,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  absolutely  essen 
tial  to  the  claims  of  Universalism.  It  is  perfectly  apparent, 


308  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

also,  from  the  structure  of  the  passage,  and  the  distinction  of 
terms  ;  thus  :  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  into  the 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  Yer.  21. 

"  The  whole  creation  groaneth,  and  not  only  they,  (it,  for 
the  antecedent  is  neuter,)  but  ourselves  also  which  have  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  waiting  for  the 
adoption.  Ver.  22,  23. 

"  The  supposition  that  the  passage  teaches  Universalism  rests 
upon  the  three  following  assumptions. 

"  1.  That  the  passage  is  not  figurative. 

"2.   That  the  creation  includes  every  human  being. 

"  3.  That  its  deliverance  is  from  sin  into  conscious  enjoyment 
of  holiness  and  happiness  eternal. 

"The  first  statement,  though  exceedingly  important,  they  never 
argue,  but  assume.     The  second  they  usually  argue  thus  :  The 
same  creature  which  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  shall  be  deliv 
ered.     True,  the  creature  is  the  same  in  both  verses  20  and  21, 
but  to  assume  that  it  means  the  human  race  in  ver.  20,  and 
therefore  it  does  in  ver.  21,  is  a  mode   of  reasoning  not  very 
conclusive,   though  quite  characteristic.     But,  secondly  :   '  Dr. 
McKnight  decides  that  the  creature  in  the  passage  signifies  every 
human  creature.'      Guide,  p.  47.     Very  well,  Grotius,  Mich- 
aelis,  Luther,  Tholuck,   Rosenmuller,   Bloomfield,  Doddridge, 
Benson,  Knapp,  Robinson,  Hodge,  with  many  other   '  learned 
friends,'  decide  that  it  means  no  such  thing,  but  on  the  contrary 
'  the  visible  creation.'     Thirdly,  it  is  argued  '  that  tbe  creature,' 
ver.  21,  is  equivalent  to  '  the  whole  creation,'  ver.  22,  and  that 
this  last  expression  signifies  every  human  being  in  Mark  16  :  15, 
and  therefore  it  does  here.'     Let  us  examine  first  the  fact,  and 
then  the  logic.     Tbe  passage  referred  to  is  this  :  '  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to   every  creature.'     Does  this 
expression  here  include,  Universalists  themselves  being  judges, 
the  millions  of  human  beings  who  were  dead,  and,  according  to 
their  views;  in  heaven,  if  not  elsewhere,  when  it  was  spoken  ? 
Does  the  term,  every  creature,  in  this  commission,  include  ab- 


Sec.   110.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  309 

solutely  every  individual  of  the  entire  race  ?  Evidently  not. 
Universalists  interpret  the  commission  to  refer  to  the  age  then 
present.  Thus  the  '  important  fact '  upon  which  they  rest  their 
cause,  is  not  a  fact,  and  the  argument  is  invalid.  But  suppose 
it  were  a  fact  that  the  expression  in  this  single  instance  signified 
every  human  being,  does  it  follow  logically  that  it  certainly  does 
in  Rom.  8  :  19-23  ?  Paul  says,  that  in  his  day  '  the  gospel  was 
preached  to  every  creature  which  is  under  heaven.'  Col.  1  :  23. 
Here  the  same  expression  is  used,  both  in  Greek  and  English ; 
but  it  includes  only  a  small  part  of  the  human  race.  And  shall 
we  say,  therefore  it  does  in  Rom.  8  :  19-23  ?  This  argument 
from  a  single  use  is  certainly  as  good  in  one  case  as  another. 
Again :  In  Col.  1  :  15,  the  same  expression  comprehends  '  all 
things  created,'  and  therefore  by  the  same  rule  it  does  in  Rom. 
8  :  19-23.  The  logic  which  thus  proves  and  disproves  the  same 
thing  must  be  false,  and  the  conclusion  based  upon  it  is  no  bet 
ter.  The  supposition  that  the  term  '  creature  '  signifies  every 
human  being,  then,  is  without  any  valid  proof,  the  arguments  on 
which  it  depends  being  invalid.  That  it  is  untrue,  is  proved  by 
the  essential  conditions  of  the  passage,  as  above  mentioned. 
Take  that  one,  for  instance,  which  is  not  only  essential  to  the 
identity  of  the  passage,  but,  as  before  shown,  absolutely  neces 
sary  to  the  claims  of  Universalism,  viz.:  That  '  the  creature '  is 
distinct  from  '  the  sons  of  God.'  If  it  is  distinct,  then  the  crea 
ture  is  not  the  entire  race  absolutely,  for  the  sons  of  God  are  a 
part  of  the  race,  and  distinct  from  '  the  creature.'  If  it  is  not 
a  distinct  class,  then  the  passage  refers  only  to  the  sons  of  God, 
and  has  nothing  to  do  with  Universalism.  What  is  affirmed  of 
'  the  creature '  is  not  true,  in  fact,  of  every  human  being,  and 
therefore  the  creature  cannot  have  this  interpretation.  The  Uni- 
versalist  depends,  upon  the  literal  construction  of  this  language. 
We  cannot  admit  the  figurative  without  destroying  his  scheme. 
But  it  is  not  literally  true  that  every  human  being  awaiteth  in 
earnest  expectation  for  the  manifestations  of  the  sons  of  God  — 
was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  in  hope.  It  is  not 


310  UNIVERSALISM    NOT  OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

true  literally  that  every  human  being  has  an  idea  even  of  the  adop 
tion  —  the  redemption  of  our  body  —  and  therefore  they  cannot 
in  patience  wait  for  it.  Thus  the  position  that  *  the  creature '  is 
every  human  being,  must  be  abandoned  because  it  is  without 
proof,  and  also  contrary  to  essential  conditions  of  the  passage. 

"  There  is  but  one  hope  left  for  Universalism  in  this  passage, 
and  that  is  a  '  forlorn  hope  '  indeed.  Does  the  advocate  of  the 
doctrine  attempt  to  reconstruct  his  scheme  upon  the  basis  that 
'  the  creature  '  includes  all  that  portion  of  the  human  race  not 
comprehended  in  the  class  called  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.,  the 
wicked  ?  Then  it  will  be  a  difficult  task  to  show,  that  what  is 
affirmed  of  the  creature  is  true  of  the  wicked,  and  still  more 
difficult  to  sustain  the  main  position  with  the  evidence  which  the 
importance  of  the  case  demands.  Hard  as  the  task  is,  it  must 
be  done  and  done  well,  or  the  passage  must  be  given  up.  For 
unless  the  apostle  intended  to  teach  that  the  wicked,  all  the 
wicked,  shall  be  delivered  from  sin  into  the  glorious  liberty  of 
the  sons  of  God,  he  did  not  teach  Universalism  in  this  text. 
This  is  precisely  the  thing  that  must  be  proved.  This  is  Uni 
versalism,  and  Paul  did  so  teach,  say  its  advocates,  in  this  pas 
sage.  But  that  he  did  not  is  further  evident, 

"  1.  From  the  design  he  had  in  view  in  introducing  the  pres 
ent  sufferings  and  future  glory  of  the  sons  of  God.  It  was  sim 
ply  this  :  To  comfort  them  in  their  afflictions  and  to  prevent  their 
apostasy  from  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  gospel.  He  employs 
these  powerful  motives.  1st.  If  we  are  children,  then  heirs  ;  if 
we  suffer  with  him  we  shall  also  be  glorified  together.  Vcr.  17. 
2d.  The  sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be 
compared  with  the  glory  to  be  revealed,  not  in  all,  but  '  in  its.' 
Here  he  presents  the  future  glory  of  the  saints  with  its  limita 
tions  and  conditions,  '  if  children,'  and  '  if  we  suffer  with  him.' 
Then  he  writes  thus,  (if  the  term  creature  includes  the  wicked): 
The  wicked  also  earnestly  expect  this  glory,  and  they  were  made 
subject  to  vanity,  sin,  and  death ;  not  willingly  —  not  by 
their  faults  ;  and  in  fact  they  also  shall  inherit  the  glorious  lib- 


Sec.  110.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  311 

erty  of  the  children  of  God.  Ver.  19-21.  Thus  his  entire 
argument  is  rendered  null,  and  the  motives  void  by  the  subse 
quent  announcement,  that  it  will  be  the  same  in  the  end  with 
those  who  deny  Christ  as  with  those  who  confess  him,  even  unto 
death.  Had  he  designed  to  induce  apostasy  from  the  restraints 
of  the  gospel,  and  give  full  license  to  sin,  this  was  the  doctrine 
to  do  it.  13 ut  as  such  was  not  his  design,  such  was  not  his 
doctrine. 

"  2.  That  Paul  did  not  teach  here,  that  the  wicked  shall  be 
co-heirs  with  the  saints,  is  evident  from  the  following  explicit 
statements  in  the  context.  Compare  the  context  with  the  doc 
trine  of  the  text,  as  explained  by  Universalists  : 

"  Context.  '  If  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is 
none  of  his.'  Ver.  4. 

"  Text.   '  All  are  his,  whether  they  have  his  spirit  or  not.' 

"  Con.    '  If  children,  then  heirs.'     Yer.  17. 

"  Text.   'All  are  heirs.' 

"  Con.  If  we  suffer  with  him,  we  shall  also  be  glorified  to 
gether.  Ver.  17.  Compare  2  Tim.  2  :  12  :  '  If  we  suffer  we 
shall  also  reign  with  him ;  if  we  deny  him,  he  will  also  deny 
us.' 

"  Text.  We  shall  all  be  glorified  with  Christ,  whether  we  suf 
fer  with  him  or  deny  him.  Thus  Paul  is  made  to  contradict 
himself. 

"  Look  once  more  at  the  context  and  compare  Paul's  testimo 
ny  there  with  this  interpretation  of  the  text,  and  sec  how  his 
language  and  this  doctrine  neutralize  each  other  : 

' '  Paul.  The  carnal  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God. 
Ver.  7. 

"  Univer.  True  it  is  not,  but  it  shall  be,  in  every  case,  with 
out  exception. 

"  Paul.  If  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none 
of  his.  Ver.  9. 

"  Univer.  If  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  he  need 
not  fear,  for  he  shall  have  it. 


312  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

"  Paul  If  yc  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die.     Ver.  13. 

"  Uhiver.  True,  ye  shall  die,  but  ye  shall  live  afterwards,  for 
whether  flesh  or  spirit  be  your  choice  here,  eternal  life  is  your 
certain  portion  hereafter. 

"  Paul.  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  they  are  the 
sons  of  God.  Ver.  14. 

"  Univer.  All  are  the  sons  of  God  ;  and  if  not,  they  shall 
be. 

"  Paul.  The  spirit  beareth  witness  with  our  spirits,  that  we 
are  the  children  of  God,  and  if  children,  then  heirs  —  heirs  of 
God  and  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ.  Ver.  16,  17. 

"  Univer.  Horn.  8  :  19-23,  and,  in  fact,  the  whole  Bible 
beareth  witness  that  we,  even  we,  '  who  are  filled  with  all  un 
righteousness,  fornication,  wickedness,  covetousness,  malicious 
ness,  envy,  murder,  deceit,  malignity,  backbiters,  haters  of  God, 
covenant  breakers,  implacable,  unmerciful,'  (Rom.  1  :  29,)  are 
co-heirs  with  the  saints,  and  shall  be  delivered  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God. 

"  Thus  we  have  compared  the  doctrines  of  the  context  with 
the  text  as  explained  by  Universalists,  and  we  can  now  see  how 
false  the  apostle  was  to  his  own  statements,  and  how  he  utterly 
destroyed  the  logical  decency,  as  well  as  moral  effect,  of  his  dis 
course,  upon  the  supposition,  that  in  the  text  he  teaches  that  the 
wicked  shall  be  delivered  from  sin  into  the  glorious  liberty  of 
the  children  of  God.  Neither  can  we  avoid  these  contradictions 
and  absurdities  in  any  possible  way,  but  by  denying  that  he 
taught  Universalism  in  this  passage,  or,  indeed,  any  other;  for 
the  result  is  the  same  if  he  has  taught  it  anywhere.  The  argu 
ment  with  the  Universalist  is  now  closed.  We  have  shown  that 
every  position  which  he  has  taken,  or  can  take,  from  which  to 
deduce  his  doctrine,  is  false.  We  have  shown  that  the  term 
creature  does  not  mean  the  entire  race  of  man,  nor  yet  the 
wicked  portion  of  it.  But  it  must  mean  one  or  the  other  of 
these,  or  the  passage  cannot  possibly  teach  Universalism.  The 
true  import  is  very  apparent  from  a  comparison  of  the  positions 


Sec.  110.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 


313 


already  established.  We  have  seen  that  the  creature  must  be 
something  made  subject  to  vanity.  It  must  be  then  the  material 
earth,  or  its  inhabitants.  We  have  shown  that  it  is  not  man,  in 
whole,  or  in  part.  It  must,  therefore,  be  the  earth  and  irrational 
creatures,  or  one  of  them.  There  may  be  a  distinction  between 
'  the  creature  '  and  '  the  whole  creation,'  or  every  creature  ;  the 
former  designating  a  part,  the  earth  ;  the  latter,  the  whole,  the 
earth  and  irrational  creatures.  If  so,  the  promise  of  redemp 
tion  is  restricted  to  the  '  creature,'  the  earth.  It  is  not  said  that 
the  whole  creation  shall  be  delivered,  but  only  'the  creature.' 
That  the  earth  is  to  be  delivered  from  the  curse,  and  will  share 
the  glory  of  the  children  of  God,  according  to  its  nature  and  as 
it  did  before  the  fall,  is  certainly  not  denied,  but  frequently  inti 
mated  in  the  scriptures.  '  It  is  certainly  in  harmony  with  the 
design  of  the  apostle,  in  a  bold  figurative  expression,  to  give  an 
idea  of  the  future  glory  of  the  saints  by  representing  it  as  so 
transcendently  excellent  as  to  excite  the  earnest  desire  of  the 
entire  creation,  animate  and  inanimate.' 

"  Neither  is  the  method  singular,  for  '  the  scriptures  frequent 
ly  speak  of  the  creation  as  a  sentient  being,  rejoicing  in  God's 
favor,  or  trembling  at  his  anger,  speaking  abroad  his  praises, 
&c.,  as  Paul  here  represents  it  as  longing  for  the  great  consum 
mation  of  all  things.  Again  :  It  is  agreeable  to  scripture  to 
speak  of  the  earth  as  cursed  for  man's  sake  ;  as  made  subject  to 
vanity,  not  on  its  own  account,  but  by  the  act  of  God  in  pun 
ishment  of  the  sins  of  men.  Finally,  it  is  according  to  the 
word  of  God  to  represent  the  creation  as  participating  in  the 
blessings  and  glories  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  Isa.  31 :  1 ; 
29:17;  32:15,  16;  2  Pet.  3:7-13;  Heb.  12:26,  27.' 
Hodge." 

One  thought  more.  Mr.  Whittemore  has  adopted  a  rule  in 
argument,  (Sec.  CXV,)  which,  if  correct,  we  have  a  right  to 
avail  ourselves  of.  Let  us  apply  it  here.  Does  the  passage  say 
that  all  our  race  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corrup 
tion  in  the  immortal  state  ?  Does  it  say  that  all  men  shall  have 


314  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

the  "  liberty  of  the  children  of  God  "  in  eternity?  Does  it  say 
that  there  is  no  punishment  after  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ? 
"  As  nothing  of  the  kind  is  said,  we  presume  nothing  like  it  is 
meant."  Guide,  p.  72. 

This  mighty  battering  ram,  of  Mr.  Whittemore's  constructing} 
when  turned  upon  Universalism,  beats  down  the  whole  citadel, 
walls,  tower  and  all,  for  it  can  be  brought  to  bear  with  destruct 
ive  force  upon  every  text  produced  to  sustain  that  doctrine. 

CXI.  "And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before 
God  ;  and  the  books  were  opened"  &c.  Rev.  20  :  12-15. 

Mr.  "Whittemore  sees  Jerusalem's  destruction  in  this  passage. 
Guide,  p.  240.  But  by  what  stretch  of  language  it  can  be  made 
to  appear  that  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stood  before  God,  and 
that  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it,  and  that  death 
and  hell  delivered  up  their  dead,  and  that  every  man  of  them 
were  judged  according  to  their  works  at  Jersalem's  destruction, 
•we  have  yet  to  learn.  The  phrase  "  the  dead"  in  1  Cor.  15  : 
35,  includes  all  the  dead,  say  Universalists.  If  this  phrase  must 
mean  all  the  dead,  then  it  is  to  be  so  understood  in  this  passage. 
The  connection  determines  this  to  be  the  sense  here.  But  were 
all  the  dead  at  Jerusalem  to  be  judged  when  the  Romans 
besieged  that  city  ?  Furthermore,  there  is  no  valid  evidence 
that  this  book  was  written  before  that  event.  Says  Home, 
"  We  conclude,  therefore,  with  Dr.  Mills,  Le  Clerc,  Basnage, 
Dr.  Lardner,  Bishop  Tornline,  Dr.  Woodhouse,  and  other  emi 
nent  critics,  in  placing  the  Apocalypse  in  the  vear  96  or  97." 
Introd.,  Part  2,  p.  382.  , 

We  might  take  up  every  point  in  the  passage,  and  show  the 
violent  wresting  by  such  a  construction  as  is  given  by  the  Guide, 
but  will  leave  it  with  the  good  sense  of  the  reader,  after  giving 
Dr.  Chauncey's  view  of  the  text.  He  paraphrases  the  12th 
verse  thus  :  "  I  then  beheld  in  my  vision  the  dead  raised,  both 
high  and  low,  young  and  old ;  and  they  stood  before  the  throne 
of  God,  and  were  judged  in  a  most  fair  and  equal  manner, 


SeC.  112.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  315 

according  to  their  works,  whether  they  had  been  good  or  evil. 
And  that  this  retribution  might  be  absolutely  universal,  taking 
in  the  whole  race  of  men,  the  dead,  without  distinction  or  limi 
tation  were  raised  again  to  life,  whether  they  died  and  were 
buried  in  the  sea,  or  whether  they  died  on  the  land,  and  were 
buried  in  the  grave ;  all  in  the  invisible  state  of  the  dead  were 
brought  to  life,  and  judged  according  to  their  works."  Salva 
tion  of  all  Men,  p.  876.  Dr.  Chauncey  was  a  Universalist, 
according  to  Mr.  Whittemore's  definition,  (  Guide,  p.  16,)  but 
it  never  once  entered  his  mind  that  Jerusalem's  destruction  was 
the  theme  of  Inspiration  here. 

CXIT.  "Lord,  are  there  few  that  be  saved?"  &c.  Luke 
13  :  23-30.  Upon  this  passage,  we  take  the  liberty  to  copy  the 
following  from  ResselVs  Letters. 

"Now  if  Christ  had  been  a  Universalist  preacher,  here  was 
a  happy  opportunity  to  assail  the  popular  error  upon  the  subject 
of  the  future  destiny  of  the  wicked,  and  to  set  at  least  one  per 
son  right.  But  did  Christ  preach  to  him  Universalism  ?  Far 
from  it.  Look  at  the  case.  It  is  evident  he  did  not  teach  Uni 
versalism, 

"  1.  From  the  question  which  was  proposed  to  him  by  one  of 
his  hearers.  Did  you  ever  know  an  instance  in  which  one  of 
the  hearers  of  a  Universalist  preacher,  ever  applied  to  his  minis 
ter  to  get  his  opinion  as  to  how  many  would  finally  be  saved  ? 
Why  the  very  fact  that  he  is  a  Universalist  answers  the  question. 
If  Christ  taught  the  doctrine  that  all  men  were  equally  and 
immortally  happy  upon  entering  the  eternal  world,  his  hearers 
would  have  all  known  this  to  have  been  one  of  the  peculiarities 
of  his  faith,  and  they  would  as  soon  have  asked  him  how  many 
gods  there  were,  as  whether  few  would  be  saved. 

"2.  If  up  to  this  time  Christ  had  taught  Universalism  ambig 
uously  and  with  reservation,  now  that  the  question  is  fairly 
submitted  to  him,  and  seeing  he  must  have  come  from  heaven  — 
not  to  save  men  from  perdition,  for  they  were  never  exposed  to 


316  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

future  sufferings  —  but  to  teach  Universalism,  it  would  seem  all 
ambiguity  and  reservation  must  be  laid  aside,  and  we  shall  have 
and  unqualified  declaration  that  all  men  will  be  saved.  Go  to 
any  Universalist  preacher  with  the  question  whether  few  or  many 
are  to  be  saved,  and  he  will  answer  it  at  once,  and  in  such  lan 
guage,  too,  as  cannot  honestly  be  misunderstood. 

"  3.  But  the  manner  in  which  Christ  answered  this  question, 
clearly  shows  that  the  Son  of  God  regarded  the  man  who  asked 
the  question,  as  in  danger  of  losing  his  own  soul.  Hear  the 
answer  of  Christ.  Let  it  ring  in  your  ears  with  all  its  awful 
solemnity,  and  sink  down  into  your  heart.  '  Strive  to  enter  in 
at  the  strait  gate  ;  for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to  enter 
in,  and  shall  not  be  able.  When  once  the  master  of  the  house 
is  risen  up,  and  hath  shut  to  the  door,  and  ye  begin  to  stand 
without  and  to  knock  at  the  door,  saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto 
us  ;  and  he  shall  answer  and  say  unto  you,  I  know  not  whence 
ye  are  :  Then  shall  ye  begin  to  say,  We  have  eaten  and  drunken 
in  thy  presence,  and  thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets.  But  he 
shall  say,  I  tell  you  I  know  not  whence  ye  are  ;  depart  from  me, 
ye  workers  of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the 
prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  yourselves  thrust  out. 
And  they  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  from  the  west,  and  from 
the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom 
of  God.' 

"  Mr.  Whittemore  in  his  Guide,  in  which  he  says,  'every 
threatening  is  explained,'  has  given  this  text  the  ingenious  '  go 
by.'  He  quotes  7  :  13,  14,  attempts  an  explanation,  refers  to 
Luke  13  :  24  as  a  parallel  text,  and  passes  along.  But  your 
preachers  and  authors  who  have  attempted  an  explanation  of  this 
text,  tell  us  that  the  inquirer  did  not  seek  information  as  to  the 
number  who  would  enjoy  salvation  in  the  world  to  come,  but 
how  many  there  are  saved  now  in  this  world ;  that  is,  he  wished 
to  know  whether  there  were  few  or  many  righteous  persons  in 
this  world.  A  grave  question,  truly  !  The  answer  of  Christ 


SeC.  112.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  317 

is  referred  to  the  famous  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  was  then 
and  there  the  door  was  shut  to  the  Jews,  and  opened  to  the  Gen 
tiles  ;  it  was  then  and  there  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and 
all  the  prophets,  were  seen  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  while  they 
themselves  were  thrust  out,  &c.  To  all  this  I  object, 

"1.  If  the  inquirer  wished  to  know  the  state  of  morals  and 
religion,  it  is  not  a  little  singular  that  he  should  have  gone  to 
Christ  to  have  ascertained  the  state  of  society  around  him.  He 
had  been  brought  up  in  society,  and  had  daily  opportunities  of 
observing  the  characters  of  his  fellow  men.  He  knew  men  were 
to  be  judged  by  their  fruits,  and  he  could  have  formed  a  very 
satisfactory  conclusion  as  to  what  portion  of  society  were  then 
pious,  without  going  to  Christ  with  the  question.  It  is  an  un 
natural  question  to  be  asked  under  the  circumstances. 

"2.  In  the  answer  of  our  Lord,  nothing  is  said  adapted  to 
teach  the  inquirer  that  Jerusalem  was  to  be  destroyed  at  all, 
much  less  that  the  master  of  the  house  was  to  rise  up  at  that 
time  and  shut  the  door  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If  this  was 
the  illusion,  the  inquirer  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  understood 
it. 

"3.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  true  that  Christ,  the  master 
of  the  house,  shut  the  door  of  grace  or  glory  against  the  Jews, 
either  at,  or  any  time  since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  since  the  crucifixion,  stand  on  a  dead  level 
as  to  religious  rights  and  privileges.  Christ  has  broken  down 
the  middle-wall  of  partition,  and  his  gospel  was  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  has  been  ever  since,  *  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth,  to  the  JEW 
first,  and  also  to  the  Gentiles.'  Rom.  1 :  16. 

"  4.  The  persons  said  to  be  excluded  here  from  the  kingdom  of 
God,  are  not  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  but  '  all  the  workers  of  ini 
quity .'  Does  all  in  the  vocabulary  of  Universalism  mean  all? 

"5.  If  the  kingdom  of  God  (v.  28)  denotes  the  gospel  king 
dom,  which  Universalist  expositors  tell  us  was  fully  set  up  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  then  it  is  not  true  that  Abraham, 


318  UNIVERSALISH    NOT    OF    TUB    BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets,  were  ever  in  the  king 
dom  of  God  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  nor  can  it  be  true  ' 
that  they  will  ever  be  in  that  kingdom.  How,  then,  can  it  be 
true  that  any  of  those  who  heard  Christ  on  this  occasion,  did  see 
those  Old  Testament  saints  in  that  kingdom  ?  Besides,  the  most 
if  not  all  present  on  this  occasion  to  hear  Christ,  were  in  eter 
nity  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  How,  then,  could  they 
see  Abraham  and  all  the  prophets  entering  into  the  gospel  king 
dom  in  this  world  ?  These  are  mysteries.  The  more  I  examine 
your  explanations,  the  more  supremely  ridiculous  and  contradict 
ory  they  seem  to  me.  The  truth  is  never  thus  inconsistent  and 
contradictory." 

CXIII.  "No  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in  him.1' 
1  John  3  :  15. 

In  reply  to  the  idea  that  suicide  cannot  be  punished  unless 
there  be  punishment  in  the  future  state,  Mr.  Whittemore  says, 
"  It  supposes  the  sin  of  suicide  to  consist  in  the  overt  act,  after 
which  the  sinner  cannot  be  punished.  On  the  contrary,  the  sin 
consists  in  the  intention  to  do  the  deed ;  and  every  person  not 
morally  blind,  can  see  punishment  enough  for  this  in  that  horrid 
state  of  mind  which  could  induce  the  intention.  This  state  of 
mind  may  have  existed  for  a  long  time  prior ;  it  may  have  been 
continually  growing  worse."  Trumpet,  No.  676.  The  sin 
lies  in  the  intention,  and  the  punishment  for  that  intention  con 
sists  in  that  state  of  mind  which  induced  it,  and  "  and  may  have 
existed  a  long  time  prior •."  Or,  in  other  words,  God  punishes 
for  sin  before  it  is  committed,  and  as  a  man  must  be  counted 
innocent  till  he  commits  sin,  God  by  this  method  is  charged  with 
punishing  the  innocent,  and  thus  neither  mercy  or  justice  have  a 
place  in  his  administration  !  Such  is  the  theology  of  Univer- 
salism.  (Sec.  LX.) 

Various  devices  have  been  sought  out  to  show  how  suicide  is 
punished  without  future  retribution;  but  Mr.  A.  B.  Grosh,  a 


Sec.  113.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  319 

great  man  in  the  order,  solves  the  whole  difficulty  by  showing, 
in  his  way,  that  suicide  is  no  crime.  To  the  question,  "  How 
do  you  reconcile  cases  of  suicide  with  your  doctrine  of  all-suffi 
cient  punishment  in  this  life  ?  "  he  answers  thus  : 

"  I  suppose  that  the  scriptures  regard  it  as  under  one  of  the 
following  heads  : 

"1.  Either  they  class  it  under  the  head  of  murder  —  '  thou 
shalt  not  kill/ —  in  which  case  the  penalty,  the  whole  penalty, 
the  only  penalty,  after  the  act,  I  can  there  find  on  record  against 
murder,  is  inflicted  on  the  criminal  in  the  very  act  of  transgres 
sion  ;  viz.:  by  man  his  blood  is  shed.  I  am  not  very  sanguine 
in  this  opinion,  (i.  e.,  that  it  is  murder,)  inasmuch  as  there  is 
no  appearance  of  malice  in  the  offender  against  himself;  for  the 
apostle  says,  '  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh ; '  conse 
quently  the  act  is  scarcely  murder. 

"2.  Or  the  scriptures  consider  it  as  the  act  of  none  who  are 
of  sound  mind,  and  therefore  accountable  beings.  In  the  cases 
where  suicides  are  recorded,  the  act  itself  is  never  condemned, 
or  even  named  as  a  criminal  one.  It  seems  entirely  omitted  in 
the  various  and  frequent  lists  of  actions  forbidden  to  be  prac 
tised. 

"3.  In  conclusion,  believing  the  object  of  punishment  to  be 
salvation  from  sin,  I  can  conceive  of  n)  use  for  it  for  this  act 
more  than  for  any  other.  There  is  no  danger  that  suicide  will 
ever  be  committed  in  the  immortal  state.  As  to  the  mental 
guilt,  let  it  be  shown  that  the  suicide  had  an  evil  intention,  and 
that  he  was  of  perfectly  sane  mind  in  forming  it,  and  that  it  is 
necessary  for  his  salvation  to  be  punished  after  death,  and  there 
is  no  one  that  will  object  to  his  receiving  all  that  is  necessary. 
As  this  cannot  be  done,  no  more  than  I  can  prove  the  negative 
of  the  proposition ;  and,  above  all,  as  the  Bible  is  silent  on  the 
subject ;  I  think  it  best  becomes  us  not  to  dogmatize  upon  it." 
Mag.  $  Adv.,  vol.  8,  p.  358. 

Some  infidels  have  advocated  the  right  of  man  to  commit 
suicide  when  he  pleases,  inasmuch  as  he  has  no  agency  in  brino-- 


320  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  I. 

ing  himself  into  the  world.  Is  the  doctrine  set  forth  by  Mr. 
Grosh  any  better  ?  He  labors  to  prove  that  suicide  is  no  sin, 
and  of  course  needs  no  punishment ;  and  Mr.  Whittemore  will 
have  it  that  sin  is  punished  beforehand  !  We  leave  these  views 
with  the  reader,  as  specimens  of  the  work  of  two  leaders  in  the 
order,  a  work  every  way  worthy  of  the  cause  it  is  designed  to 
sustain.  More  disciples  would  avail  themselves  of  the  liberty  of 
cutting  their  way  to  their  fancied  heaven  through  their  own 
throats,  were  it  not  for  weakness  of  faith.  (Sec.  CXXXVIII.) 


Sec.  114.]          UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  321 


PART    II. 

MISCELLANEOUS  ARGUMENTS. 

CXIY.  The  arguments  built  upon  the  perfections  of  God 
against  the  truth,  are  perhaps  as  deceptive  as  any.  God,  say 
Universalists,  possesses  unbounded  goodness,  and  of  course  will 
seek  the  greatest  good  of  his  creatures  ;  and  his  infinite  wisdom 
and  almighty  power  can  accomplish  all  his  goodness  dictates  :  as 
endless  punishment  cannot  be  for  the  good  of  his  creatures,  the 
doctrine  is  false.  Now  this  specious  argument,  so  often  em 
ployed,  lies  with  all  its  weight  against  matter  of  fact,  viz  :  the 
present  sufferings  of  the  human  race.  It  avails  nothing  to  say 
that  their  present  sufferings  shall  result  in  their  good  ;  for,  rea 
soning  from  the  attributes  of  God,  as  Universalists  are  wont  to  do, 
we  might  ask,  is  a  being  possessed  of  infinite  wisdom,  power  and 
goodness,  under  the  necessity  of  first  making  the  human  race 
suffer  six  thousand  years  before  he  can  make  them  perfectly 
happy  ?  All  will  see  that,  if  our  knowledge  of  God's  attributes 
is  to  be  the  basis  of  doctrine,  then  no  human  suffering  could 
ever  have  existed ;  for  none  can  doubt  but  Omnipotence  could 
have  created  men,  at  first,  as  happy  as  any  ever  will  be,  and  have 
kept  them  so.  But  matter  of  fact  teaches  us  that  he  has  not 
done  it ;  therefore  all  such  reasoning  must  be  false.  Suppose  a 
being,  adopting  the  Universalist  mode  of  argument,  to  have  ex 
isted  prior  to  the  creation  of  man.  It  is  announced  to  him  that 
God  is  about  to  create  a  race  of  beings  called  men,  and  that  they 
are  to  exist  in  a  sinful,  suffering  state  for  six  thousand  years,  or 
more,  and  then  he  is  to  make  them  all  holy  and  happy ;  that 
some  of  the  race  shall  live  and  endure  this  thirty,  fifty,  one  hun 
dred,  and  some  even  nine  hundred  and  sixty-nine  years  (Gen. 
16 


322  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

5  :  27)  ;  that  they  shall  suffer  from  wars,  slavery,  famine,  pov 
erty,  disease,  intemperance,  partiaUsm,  and  innumerable  other 
evils ;  that  even  tender  infants,  before  they  know  right  from 
wrong,  shall  often  suffer  the  most  extreme  agonies  for  weeks  and 
months  together ;  but  that  this  suffering  is  all  disciplinary,  and 
necessary  for  the  ultimate  happiness  of  the  race.  How  would 
such  a  being  meet  this  ?  He  would  reply,  I  cannot  believe  a 
doctrine  which  reflects  so  ingloriously  upon  my  Heavenly  Father, 
and  is  so  at  war  with  his  attributes  ;  for, 

1.  His  power  and  wisdom  are  infinite,  therefore  he  can  do 
His  pleasure,  and  none  can  hinder. 

2.  His  goodness  is  unbounded,  which  of  course  will  admit  of 
no  unnecessary  suffering  on  the  part  of  his  creatures,  but  will 
make  him  delight  in  their  perfect  and  undisturbed  happiness. 

3.  Having  such  power  and  wisdom,  such  suffering  is  unneces 
sary,  for  he  can  create  and  keep  them  just  as  happy  as  he  can 
possibly  make  them  after  they  have  suffered  six  thousand  years ; 
therefore  such  a  suffering  race  will  never  exist. 

Such  reasoning,  as  plausible  as  it  may  appear,  would  have 
been  false,  for  such  a  suffering  race  is  now  in  existence  ;  and  as 
it  is  compatible  with  the  attributes  of  God  for  the  human  race  to 
suffer  six  thousand  years  without  our  seeing  a  reason  why,  it  may 
be  so  for  some  of  them  to  suffer  endlessly.  We  might  extend 
our  remarks  and  illustrations  had  we  space,  but  enough  has  been 
said  to  give  the  reader  a  clue  to  the  sophistries  of  these  men 
upon  this  subject.  (Sec.  CIV.) 

Their  appeals  to  human  sympathy  are  equally  deceptive  and 
fallacious.  Say  they,  "  You  are  possessed  of  more  goodness 
than  your  God,  for  you  would  not  punish  one  of  your  children 
endlessly."  To  such  it  is  replied,  You  are  possessed  of  more 
goodness  than  your  God,  for  when  your  child  is  suffering  by 
disease,  or  otherwise,  had  you  the  ability,  you  would  relieve  it  in 
a  moment.  God  has  such  ability,  but  he  does  not  relieve  it  ; 
the  innocent  child  suffers  on.  So  you  see  how  much  better  you 
are  than  your  God.  Again  ;  you  cast  about  you,  and  witness 


Sec.   115.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  323 

the  untold  agonies  of  the  human  race,  suffering  from  various 
causes ;  and  while  you  contemplate  these,  your  heart  is  moved 
with  compassion,  and  had  you  the  ability,  you  would  put  a  stop 
to  these  evils  at  once  and  forever,  and  spread  peace,  joy,[and 
permanent  happiness  throughout  the  universe.  God  possesses 
such  ability,  yet  the  suffering  continues.  So  you  see  how  much 
better  you  are  than  your  God.  By  this  mode  of  argument  many 
are  deceived  ;  making  human  sympathy  a  rule  by  which  to  judge 
of  God's  moral  government,  is  most  preposterous  ;  and  for  finite 
man  to  make  his  views  of  the  divine  perfections,  which  he  can 
never  fully  understand,  the  basis  of  doctrines,  is  always  to 
plunge  himself  into  the  vortex  of  error.  Infinity  can  never  be 
fully  comprehended  by  a  finite  mind  ;  and,  as  in  reasoning  upon 
other  subjects,  we  cannot  arrive  at  just  conclusions,  unless  we 
understand  the  premises,  so  with  this.  God  has  revealed  to  us 
that  he  is  almighty,  holy,  wise,  just  and  good,  but  we  can  never 
so  understand  these  infinite  perfections,  as  to  be  able  to  learn 
from  them,  aside  from  what  the  Scriptures  reveal,  what  is,  and 
what  is  not  consistent  with  them.  If  Universalism  is  taught  in 
the  Bible,  it  is  true,  whether  we  can  see  a  reason  in  the  divine 
attributes  for  it  or  not ;  and  so  with  endless  punishment.  But 
for  finite  and  depraved  man  to  rise  up,  and  tell  us  from  the 
divine  attributes  what  must  and  what  must  not  take  place,  is  as 
unseemly  as  it  would  be  for  a  child  of  three  years  to  be  found 
dictating  and  expounding  the  laws  of  an  empire. 

The  same  deceptive  course  is  pursued  concerning  the  will  of 
God.  (See  Sec.  LXXXY.) 

CXV.  "  We  call  upon  the  writers  who  adduce  these  passages 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  to  bring  forward 
some  text  like  this  :  The  wicked  shall  perish  in  the  immortal 
state ;  into  smoke  shall  they  consume  away  in  the  immortal 
state ;  the  transgressors  shall  be  destroyed  beyond  the  grave  ; 
the  end  of  the  wicked  shall  be  cut  off  in  eternity  "  Guide \ 
p.  67. 


324  UNITERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

This,  by  its  author,  is  adopted  as  a  rule  by  which  to  set  aside 
scriptures  brought  against  his  doctrine,  and  we  find  him  apply 
ing  it  as  follows  :  "  Prov.  14  :  32.  '  The  wicked  is  driven 
away  in  his  wickedness;  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his 
death.'  In  order  to  express  the  common  doctrine  which  is  in 
ferred  from  this  passage,  it  should  read,  '  the  wicked  is  driven 
into  endless  punishment  in  the  future  world  ;  '  but  as  nothing  of 
that  kind  is  said,  so  we  presume  nothing  like  it  is  meant."  On 
Eccl.  12:  14,  he  asks,  "Is  it  said,  'God  shall  bring  every 
work  into  judgment '  in  the  future,  immortal  existence  ?  No 
such  statement  is  made."  Again  ;  Ps.  49  :  14,  15,  "Is  there 
one  word  intimated  in  regard  to  punishment  after  the  resurrec 
tion  of  the  dead?  Not  a  syllable."  With  such  a  rule,  who 
can  wonder  that  Mr.  Whittemore  is  always  victorious  in  contro 
versy  ! 

Suppose  we  make  the  same  demand,  and  call  upon  Univer- 
salists  to  produce  texts  like  these  :  all  men  shall  be  as  the  angels 
of  God  in  the  immortal  state  ;  all  men  shall  be  holy  and  happy 
beyond  the  grave  ;  all  men  shall  be  saved  in  eternity  ;  and  then 
assert  that,  because  none  of  these  expressions  are  appended  to 
any  texts  they  bring  to  support  their  doctrine,  that  nothing  like 
them  is  meant?  In  this  way  not  only  is  future  punishment 
destroyed,  but  future  bliss ;  and  thus  the  world  is  left  without 
any  hope  of  a  future  life. 

In  No.  1005  of  the  Trumpet  is  the  following  scrap,  thrown 
in  by  the  editor  : 

"Last  week's  'Recorder'  has  an  article  entitled  'Unpar 
donable  Sin.'  We  will  give  the  editor  of  the  '  Recorder  '  fifty 
dollars,  if  he  will  find  such  an  expression  in  the  scriptures." 

Doubtless  this  passed  for  a  very  weighty  argument,  with  many 
of  the  readers  of  that  print.  We  are  told,  too,  in  their  writings, 
that  the  phrase  "eternal  death"  is  not  found  in  the  Bible  ; 
and  from  the  frequency  of  this  statement  by  some  of  their  divines, 
we  conclude  they  deem  it  of  great  importance  in  sustaining  their 
system.  We  admit  that  the  exact  phrase  "  eternal  death,"  is 


SCC.  115.]          UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  325 

not  in  the  Bible,  but  the  phrases  "  eternal  damnation,'1  "  ever 
lasting  destruction,"  and  "  everlasting  punishment,"  are  in  the 
Bible  ;  and  we  conclude  that  eternal  death  is  antithetically  ex 
pressed  in  Rom.  6  :  23 ;  also,  that  the  doctrine  expressed  by 
this  phrase,  is  clearly  taught  in  other  parts  of  the  scriptures. 
The  argument  of  the  Universalists  is  this  :  the  expressions  "  un 
pardonable  sin,"  and  "eternal  death,"  are  not  in  the  Bible; 
therefore  the  doctrines  they  are  used  to  express  are  not  in  the 
Bible.  Is  this  sound  ?  Let  us  see,  by  applying  this  rule  in 
argument  to  some  of  the  expressions  in  use  by  Universalists,  and 
see  how  it  works.  In  their  writings  we  find  the  following  : 
"future  state,"  "  immortal  state"  ''  immortal  existence," 
"  all  will  be  holy  and  happy,"  "  Deity,"  &c.  All  will  see  that 
we  could  very  safely  offer  "ffty  dollars"  to  any  one  who  will 
find  either  of  these  expressions  in  the  Bible.  The  argument 
stands  thus,  then  :  these  expressions  are  not  in  the  Bible  ;  there 
fore  the  doctrines  they  are  used  to  express  are  not  in  the  Bible. 
Thus,  by  the  magic  wand  of  its  own  advocates,  is  Universalism 
swept  by  the  board,  and  the  existence  of  God,  too.  All  discern 
ing  men  will  see  that  there  is  no  argument  in  this  :  but  the 
advocates  of  this  dogma  use  it  because  they  know  that  unthink 
ing  men  may  be  duped  by  it. 

But  supposing  the  phrase  "  eternal  death"  was  found  forty 
times  in  the  Bible,  would  Universalists  allow  it  a  future-state 
reference  ?  Not  they.  The  same  sophistry  which  deprives  the 
phrase  "  eternal  life  "  of  its  future-state  reference,  could,  just 
as  easily,  be  employed  on  the  phrase  "  eternal  death."  It  dis 
covers  great  wickedness  to  harp  so  much  upon  the  absence  of  the 
phrase  "  eternal  death,"  to  prove  their  doctrine,  denying,  as  they 
do,  the  future-state  reference  of  the  phrase  which  is  its  counter 
part.  (Sec.  LXVIII.) 

We  have  been  told,  for  the  hundredth  time,  that  St.  Paul 
never  used  the  word  hell  in  his  preaching.  The  following  is  a 
specimen : 

"It  is  a  singular  fact  that  St.  Paul,  from  all  that  appears  in 


326  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

the  whole  history  of  his  thirty  years9  preaching,  did  not  once  use 
the  term  HELL,  to  a  solitary  individual,  saint  or  sinner.  To  be 
sure,  he  made  use  of  certain  other  expressions,  which  are  usually 
considered,  in  our  day,  as  relating  to  endless  punishment ;  but 
if  hell,  as  commonly  understood,  is  the  place  of  punishment,  it 
is  a  singular  and  wonderful  fact  that  Paul  the  Apostle,  and  the 
chiefest  of  all  the  apostles,  never  once  uttered  it  to  an  individual ! 
Query.  What  would  be  thought  of  a  minister  in  our  day,  who 
should  preach  thirty  years,  and  never  once  threaten  his  impeni 
tent  hearers  with  the  punishment  of  hell  ?  Answer  me  that. 
What  would  be  thought  of  him  ?  "  U.  against  P.,  p.  265. 

Here  the  reader  has  one  of  Mr.  Fernald's  facts,  with  all  its 
comely  proportions.  This  is  a  very  fair  specimen  of  the  honesty 
and  logic  of  Universalist  divines.  Notice  the  crafty  attempt  to 
make  the  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  unthinking,  that  we 
have  a  history  of  all  Paul's  preaching  for  thirty  years,  whereas 
we  have  not  so  much  as  he  probably  preached  on  one  occasion, 
when  he  continued  his  discourse  till  midnight.  We  are  aware 
of  the  difference  that  exists  between  "  the  whole  history,"  and 
the  history  of  the  whole  of  a  thing.  But  did  this  man  mean  that 
this  distinction  should  be  noticed  ?  Why  does  he  ask,  "  what 
would  be  thought  of  a  minister  in  our  day,  who  should  preach 
thirty  years,"  &c.  Then  mark  his  italics.  All  will  see  the 
deceptive  design.*  But  Paul  "  did  not  once  use  the  term  hell, 
to  a  solitary  individual."  This  man,  however,  admits  that  he 
used  "  certain  other  expressions  which  are  usually  considered,  in 
our  day,  as  relating  to  endless  punishment."  Yes,  and  not  only 
in  our  day  have  they  been  so  considered,  but  by  the  brightest 
ornaments  of  the  Christian  church,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles 
to  the  present.  But  admitting  that  we  have  a  history  of  the 
whole  of  Paul's  thirty  years'  preaching,  are  there  not  some  other 
singular  and  wonderful  facts  connected  with  it  ?  The  most  of 


*  We  see  the  same  kind  of  deception  relative  to  the  Saviour's  three  years 
ministry,  in  Thayer's  recent  work  on  Endless  Punishment,  p.  117. 


Sec.  115.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  327 

those  vivid  descriptions  given  by  Paul  in  his  writings,  of  judg 
ment  and  punishment,  are  by  Universalists  referred  to  Jerusa 
lem's  destruction ;  yet  in  no  single  instance  do  we  find  the 
expression,  Jerusalem,  or  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  in  connec 
tion  with  such  descriptions.  This  is  true,  too,  of  all  the  rest  of 
the  epistles  where  such  descriptions  are  found.  Aside  from  a 
few  short  passages  in  the  Gospels,  no  one  would  ever  learn  from 
the  New  Testament,  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Romans,  was  even  so  much  as  thought  of  by  primitive  Chris 
tians.  Now  we  ask,  is  it  not  a  singular  and  wonderful  fact,  that 
Paul  the  Apostle,  and  the  chiefest  among  the  apostles,  and  all 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  too,  while  they  were  preaching  and 
writing  about  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  so  much,  they  never 
uttered  the  phrase  "  destruction  of  Jerusalem"  to  a  single  indi 
vidual  !  Now  if  Paul  could  teach  the  punishment  of  the  Jews 
at  Jerusalem  without  naming  the  place,  then  he  could  teach  the 
punishment  of  sinners  in  hell  without  naming  the  place.  Query. 
What  would  be  thought  of  a  Universalist  minister  in  our  day, 
who  should  preach  thirty  years,  and  never  once  use  the  phrase, 
"  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  "  Answer  me  that.  What  would 
be  thought  #f  him  ? 

The  following  is  from  Mr.  S.  R.  Smith  : 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  that 
is,  after  death,  is  in  no  instance  unequivocally  asserted  in  the 
Bible.  It  is  merely  inferred  from  a  few  passages,  which  cer 
tainly  admit  of  a  different  construction.  Surely,  if  true,  it  is  too 
important  to  rest  merely  upon  conjecture.  Scrip.  Doc.,  p.  29. 

This  is  from  a  Sunday  School  book,  and  by  such  a  method  do 
they  deceive  the  young.  The  argument  stands  thus  :  The  exact 
phraseology  that  S.  R.  Smith  here  employs  respecting  future 
punishment,  is  not  in  the  Bible ;  therefore,  there  is  no  future 
punishment  taught  in  the  Bible  !  Let  the  Universalist,  if  he 
can,  place  his  finger  upon  the  passage  in  the  Bible  where  it 
says,  "all  men  shall  be  saved  after  death."  This  he  cannot 
do.  We  assert,  then,  that  "  the  doctrine  of  the  final  salvation 


328  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

of  all  men,  that  is,  after  death,  is  in  no  instance  unequivocally 
asserted  in  the  Bible.  It  is  merely  inferred  from  a  few  pas 
sages,  which  certainly  admit  of  a  different  construction.  Surely, 
if  true,  it  is  too  important  to  rest  merely  upon  conjecture." 
Universalism,  then,  is  a  fable. 

All  who  write  and  speak  of  doctrines,  are  in  the  habit  of 
using  language,  the  exact  form  of  which  is  not  found  in  the  Bi 
ble  ;  and  none  are  more  in  the  habit  of  this  than  Universalists 
themselves.  But  of  us  they  demand  the  precise  phraseology  of 
the  Bible,  or  else,  forsooth,  the  doctrine  is  false  !  One  instance 
more.  Mr.  Skinner,  speaking  of  the  judgment  says,  "  Not  an 
instance  can  be  found,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  where  it  is  declared 
to  be  in  eternity."  U.  111.  $  Def.,  p.  229.  Paul  says  that 
the  judgment  is  after  death  (Sec.  XX.)  :  but  then,  as  the  exact 
expression  "  in  eternity"  it  not  appended,  there  can  be  no  judg 
ment  in  eternity  !  We  beg  leave  to  inquire  where,  in  all  the 
Bible,  is  it  declared  that  "  salvation  is  in  eternity  ?" 

Do  not  these  men  see  the  forceless  character  of  such  argu 
ments  ?  It  would  be  a  severe  reflection  upon  their  intellects  to 
say  they  do  not.  Why,  then,  do  they  use  them?  Because  the 
depraved  and  ignorant  can  be  deceived  by  them. 

CXVI.  "  Ministers  uniformly  speak  of  the  wicked  as  having 
gone  to  hell,  and  the  virtuous  to  heaven.  Why  then  call  them 
back  from  their  respective  places  to  judgment?"  U.  111.  fy 
Def.,  p.  235. 

Reasons  could  be  given  for  a  judgment,  were  it  necessary. 
But  suppose  we  cannot  tell  why  God  will  have  a  general  judg 
ment,  does  that  disprove  it  ?  It  is  not  for  us,  as  receivers  of  a 
revelation,  to  call  in  question  the  Divine  procedure,  as  there 
may  be  a  reason  in  the  mind  of  him  whose  thoughts  are  far 
above  our  thoughts  for  such  an  event,  even  though  we  cannot 
see  it.  It  becomes  us  to  inquire,  what  say  the  Scriptures  ?  and 
not  to  be  cavilling.  (Sec.  CXXXIX.)  The  Bible  evidently 
teaches  that  good  men  enter  bliss  at  death,  (Phil.  1  :  21-23,) 


Sec.   117.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OP   THE   BIBLE.  329 

and  that  wicked  men  enter  into  misery.  Luke  16  :  23.  It  also 
teaches  a  general  judgment  after  death.  Rom.  14  : 10  ;  Heb. 
9  :  28,  29.  It  is  the  very  genius  of  Infidelity  to  call  in  ques 
tion  God's  revealed  truth.  Is  there  nothing  difficult  of  solution 
in  Universalist  views  ?  Why  does  evil  exist  ?  Could  not  the 
Almighty  with  equal  ease  have  created  man  with  a  constitution 
incapable  of  sin  and  suffering  ?  Or  could  he  not,  by  his  Al 
mighty  fiat,  put  an  end  to  these  at  the  present  moment? 
Questions  of  this  character  to  any  extent,  might  be  asked  by 
skeptics. 

The  judgment  is  in  this  world,  say  Universalists,  and  takes 
place  immediately.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world,"  is  a 
text  ever  at  hand  to  prove  that  there  is  no  future  judgment,  be 
cause  all  are  judged  now.  (Sec.  LI.)  Christ  uttered  these 
words  nearly  forty  years  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  Says 
Mr.  Whittemore,  "At  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
there  was  a  general  judgment  among  the  nations  of  the  earth." 
Guide,  p.  187.  Now  if  the  Jews  and  all  others  then  living 
were  judged  forty  years  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  what 
call  was  there  for  a  general  judgment  when  that  event  took 
place?  (Sec.  CIV.)  When  Universalists  shall  have  harmo 
nized  these  portions  of  their  theology  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
candid,  they  may,  with  a  better  grace,  call  in  question  what  God 
has  revealed  concerning  a  general  judgment  in  the  future  world. 

CXVII.  In  an  effort  to  show  that  Universalism  is  not  a  new 
doctrine,  a  writer  in  the  Universalist  Companion  for  1844,  says, 
"  But  after  all  that  has  been  said  about  new  things,  what  has 
self-styled  orthodoxy  itself  to  boast  of  in  this  respect  ?  To  hear 
its  believers  talk,  one  would  think  that  the  doctrines  they  pro 
fess  have  been  in  existence  thousands  of  years.  But  what  saith 
history  on  this  subject  ?  If  we  except  the  Greek  and  Roman 
churches,  all  existing  denominations  are  of  comparative  recent 
origin,  having  mostly  arisen  since  the  era  of  the  Reformation." 
p.  35.  He  then  goes  on  with  some  parade  to  show  when  the 


330  TJNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE  BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Methodists  and  Presbyteri 
ans,  originated  as  denominations.  He  commences  with  the 
origin  of  doctrines,  and  then  shuffles  off  on  to  the  origin  of  de 
nominations  !  A  false  issue  in  argument  may  deceive  the 
people,  but  the  cause  of  truth  never  requires  it.  Christians 
have  never  condemned  Universalism  because  the  denomination 
embracing  it  is  a  new  one,  but  because  the  doctrines  are  new, 
being  such  as  were  not  taught  by  Christ,  his  apostles,  or  the 
primitive  fathers.  (Sec.  CXXXII.)  He  has  reiterated,  too,  the 
old  historical  falsehood  so  common  in  the  order,  viz.:  that  Ter- 
tullian  was  the  first  who  openly  asserted  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  in  the  Christian  church.  (See  Sec.  CXXXIII.) 

CXVIII.  Universalists  have  boasted  much  of  the  spread  of 
their  doctrine  in  Germany.  This  Universalism,  of  which  they 
have  said  so  many  good  things,  has  at  length  visited  them  in 
New  England,  producing  not  a  little  trouble  in  their  camp. 
This  Universalism,  or  Rationalism  as  it  is  called,  is  so  open,  and 
its  atheistical  character  so  visible,  that  it  was  not  so  well  suited 
to  the  order  in  New  England,  especially  just  at  a  time  when  its 
leaders  were  laboring  hard  to  impress  the  world  with  the  false 
hood  that  Universalism  is  bonajlde  Christianity.  That  this  has 
obtained  extensively  in  the  body,  is  asserted  by  Mr.  G.  Sever 
ance,  a  minister  in  the  order.  He  says,  "  within  a  few  years, 
Rationalism  has  become  very  much  diffused  in  American  litera 
ture.  It  has  found  its  way  into  many  of  our  (Universalist) 
societies."  C.  freeman,  July  18,  1851. 

Creeds,  Universalists  could  have  no  patience  with,  and  true 
liberality  had  its  abode  with  them  only.  Believe  or  disbelieve 
what  you  will,  only  believe  in  the  "  main  point,"  viz.:  that  all 
will  ultimately  be  saved,  and  you  are  a  Universalist.  This  has 
been  the  profession.  But  a  few  years  since,  expediency  de 
manded  that  a  creed  be  manufactured  for  those  among  them  who 
had  become  too  bold  in  propagating  the  good  German  Univer- 


Sec.   118.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  331 

sails ra  ;  so  at  the  "  Boston  Association,"   held  at  Lynn,  Nov. 
1847,  the  following  was  introduced  : 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Association  express  its  solemn  convic 
tion,  that  in  order  for  one  to  be  regarded  as  a  Christian  min 
ister,  ivith  respect  to  faith,  he  must  believe  in  the  Bible  account 
of  the  life,  teachings,  miracles,  death  and  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ" 

After  some  maneuvering,  fearing  lest  the  resolution  would 
not  be  adopted,  its  friends  succeeded  in  carrying  an  adjournment 
to  meet  in  four  weeks,  in  Cambridgeport,  when  the  resolution 
was  adopted  by  the  Association.  Those  among  the  aggrieved 
by  its  adoption,  were  J.  M.  Spear,  C.  Spear,  D.  H.  Plumb,  W. 
M.  Fernald,  J.  W.  Hanson,  J.  Prince,  B.  H.  Clarke,  and  W. 
Gr.  Cambridge.  These  have  published  a  "  Statement  of  Facts," 
in  which  they  complain  of  great  illiberally.  Mr.  Plumb  says : 
"  I  stand  now  just  where  I  stood  six  years  ago,  when  I  obtained 
letters  of  fellowship,  and  was  ordained.  No  questions  were 
asked  me  then  in  regard  to  belief.  I  believed  in  universal 
salvation  then,  and  I  do  now.  This  was  regarded  as  the  only 
real  essential  of  a  Universalist.  The  manner  in  which  he  was 
induced  to  believe  it  —  how  it  would  be  brought  about  —  what 
would  intervene  between  the  present  and  its  final  accomplish 
ment,  were  all  regarded  as  questions  of  secondary  importance, 
and  were  never  to  my  knowledge  put." 

In  this  document  they  complain  that  they  were  wronged,  in 
asmuch  as  they  had  introduced  no  new  principle  of  interpreta 
tion,  but  had  only  employed  one  which  had  always  been  in  the 
order  ;  and  examples  are  given  from  leading  Universalists.  (See 
one  furnished  by  J.  W.  Hanson,  in  Sec.  XCVIII.) 

In  all  this  these  men  are  correct,  and  as  Universalist 
ministers,  they  surely  had  cause  of  complaint.  The  theory  has 
ever  been  propagated  by  Rationalistic  principles,  from  Ballou  on 
the  Atonement,  to  the  last  author.  Its  very  life  depends  upon 
murdering  the  Bible.  Says  Mr.  Cambridge,  in  the  sheet 
named,  "  Universalists  have  harped  continually  in  relation  to 
using  the  sacred  gift  of  reason  in  the  investigation  of  truth  — 


332  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  &c.  But  how  is  it  now  ?  They  do 
not  say  in  so  many  words  that  reason  is  carnal,  but  their  actions 
show  that  they  are  driven  to  the  disagreeable  necessity  of  eating 
their  own  words." 

But  what  was  the  design  of  this  resolution?  Mr.  Prince 
inquires,  "  Does  it  cut  off  any  from  the  ministry  ?  Some  who 
voted  for  it,  say  that  they  regard  it  only  as  an  expression  of 
opinion,  not  as  a  measure  virtually  to  exclude  any  one  in  par 
ticular  from  the  fellowship  of  the  order,  or  as  an  attempt  to  drive 
any  one  away  from  the  Universalist  ministry.  Had  they  viewed 
it  otherwise,  they  say  they  should  not  have  voted  for  it." 

The  action  amounted  to  this,  then  :  men  who  were  declared 
by  the  resolution  not  to  be  Christian  ministers,  were  permitted 
to  remain  in  good  and  regular  standing  in  the  Universalist  min 
istry  !  But  what  was  the  real  design  of  the  resolution  ?  Mr. 
Prince  shall  tell,  who  is  now  a  minister  in  the  sect,  as  are  the 
most  of  them  whose  names  are  attached  to  the  document.  He 
says,  "I  express  it  as  my  solemn  conviction,  that  the  whole 
movement,  which  has  resulted,  (after  the  mountain  labor,  and 
'  flourish  of  trumpets  '  in  the  announcement,)  in  the  generation 
of  a  '  Resolve,'  was  an  endeavor  to  erect  a  screen  between  the 
Universalist  denomination  and  the  other  sects,  to  hide  from  their 
eyes  the  fact,  which  has  been  daily  growing  more  and  more 
apparent  to  the  gaze  of  the  world,  that  the  Universalist  body  is 
to  a  considerable  degree  tinctured  with  Rationalistic  ideas  of  the 
Bible,  of  miracles,  and  of  the  subject  of  inspiration  in  general. 
And  I  have  no  doubt  it  was  thought  that  a  movement  of  the 
kind  would  have  a  tendency  to  overawe  the  minds  of  some  of 
the  younger  brethren,  who  have  recently  ventured  to  give  free 
utterance  to  their  convictions,  in  the  pulpit.  But,  as  far  as  the 
movement  is  intended  to  disguise  the  fact  of  the  existence  and 
operating  influence  of  the  spirit  of  Rationalism  in  the  sect,  it 
will  signally  fail.  The  screen  is  too  thin  —  it  has  too  many 
loop-holes  —  and  the  other  sects  will  either  peep  through  or  look 
over  it,  with  a  half-suppressed  titter,  if  indeed  they  are  able  to 
preserve  anything  like  an  approach  to  gravity !  " 


Sec.  118.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE. 


333 


Doubtless  Mr.  Prince  is  correct  in  his  view  of  the  subject. 
This  "  statement  of  facts  "  has  so  raised  the  screen,  that  without 
difficulty  the  outsiders  have  a  fair  view  of  the  serpents  that  nes 
tle  over  in  the  dark  swamp  of  Universalism.  They  present  a 
view  of  Universalist  ministers  as-  they  are,  and  not  as  they  are 
seen  in  the  pulpit.  As  they  have  raised  the  screen,  let  us  look 
again.  Mr.  Fernald,  in  the  same  sheet,  reports  Mr.  Ballou, 
senior,  as  saying  to  him,  "  That  we  could  not,  with  our  reason, 
believe  in  miracles  as  above  the  workings  of  nature  ;  that  it  was 
best  not  to  say  much  about  it ;  that  if  any  were  so  imprudent  as 
to  broach  it  now,  they  would  have  to  bear  all  the  brunt  of  the 
battle,  and  those  who  come  after  would  reap  all  the  good.  On 
relating  the  impression  I  received  from  this  conversation  to  a 
talented  clergyman,  he  remarked  that  he  agreed  with  the  venera 
ble  gentleman  ;  that  he  did  not  call  him  weak  or  fearful,  for 
not  promulgating  these  views  ;  but  on  the  contrary  this  was  a 
a  proof  of  his  wisdom  ;  that  he  probably  had  not  seen  the  time 
when  the  world  could  bear  these  views,  and  so  had  not  pro 
claimed  them." 

Again  Mr.  F.  says,  "  One  of  the  most  popular  clergyman  in 
the  denomination,  not  sixty  miles  from  Boston,  assured  me,  in 
his  study  last  spring,  that  he  did  not  believe  that  Christ  was  ever 
raised  bodily  from  the  dead."  Mr.  Fernald  contemplated 
preaching  to  a  society,  and  was  about  to  send  word  to  them  by  a 
minister  of  the  order  as  follows  :  "  Please  tell  the  people  that  I 
am  a  Rationalist ;  that  I  do  not  believe  in  the  miracles  as  above 
nature  —  many  of  them  I  do  not  believe  in  at  all  —  not  even 
the  bodily  resurrection  of  Christ.  '  Fernald,'  said  he,  '  don't 
send  any  such  word.  Go  tell  them  that  you  are  a  Christian,  and 
there  are  not  ten  men  in  the  society  that  will  care  what  you 
believe.'  Such  was  the  advice  and  remarks  of  this  highly  es 
teemed  clergyman."  Mr.  F.  asserts  that  those  entertaining 
these  views  are  not  the  obscure  and  unmfluential  alone,  but  that 
they  "  are  among  the  first  in  the  order  —  the  most  talented,  the 
most  influential  and  popular."  Here  we  see  the  gross  infidelity 


334  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

and  black  hypocrisy  of  Universalism.  Much  more  of  the  same 
sort  might  be  presented  from  this  revelation  of  depravity,  did  our 
limits  admit. 

In  the  Trumpet  of  Aug.  25,  1855,  a  disciple  writes  to  the 
editor,  and  appears  to  be  in  a  famishing  condition  for  Universal- 
ism  as  preached  by  "  Father  Ballou,"  and  says  :  "  I  have  heard 
a  young  man  who  is  in  formal  fellowship  with  the  Universalist 
denomination,  declare  in  the  pulpit,  that  he  did  not  believe  that 
God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  after  the  creation,  as  related  in 
Genesis.  That  he  did  not  believe  that  Christ  existed  at  all 
before  he  was  born  in  Palestine,  or  that  there  was  anything  mi 
raculous  in  his  birth,  more  than  in  the  birth  of  any  other  indi 
vidual." 

Now  in  what  respect  does  this  young  man  differ  from  Ballou  ? 
He  is  a  little  more  imprudent  or  honest  in  proclaiming  his 
thoughts  from  the  pulpit,  that  is  all.  Sentiments  equally  infidel 
are  found  in  Ballou's  writings  in  abundance.  (Sec.  XCVIII.) 
Will  he  be  disfellowshipped  for  these  rank  infidel  sentiments  ? 
More  prudent  they  would  like  to  see  the  young  man,  but  are  not 
such  bigots  as  to  disfellowship  a  minister  of  theirs  for  so  small 
an  affair  ! 

CXIX.  "  No  instance  of  persecution  can  be  pointed  out,  in 
all  the  history  of  the  church,  which  can  be  justly  attributed  to 
those  who  believe  that  God  will  at  last  have  mercy  upon  all." 
Guide,  p.  261. 

If  Mr.  Whittemore  meant  to  say  that  no  individual  of  his  faith 
has  ever  persecuted,  his  statement  is  false.  Instances  not  a  few 
could  be  given,  where  Universalists  have  treated  members  of  their 
own  families  most  brutally  for  embracing  religion  among  other 
sects.  If  he  meant  to  say  that  Universalists  as  a  body  have 
never  persecuted,  it  is  no  more  than  can  be  said  of  several  other 
sects,  who  believe  in  endless  punishment.  The  Methodists,  and 
some  of  the  Baptist  sects  have  never  persecuted.  But  does  this 
prove  that  they  never  would,  if  hitched  on  to  the  corrupting  car 


Sec.  119.]          UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  335 

of  state  ?  By  no  means.  And  is  a  mere  belief  in  Universalism 
so  potent  to  remove  depravity,  that  no  persecution  might  be  ex 
pected  from  its  votaries  did  circumstances  favor  it  ?  Their  verbal 
persecution,  the  low  slang  and  bitterness  with  which  they  have 
followed  Christians,  clearly  indicate  to  what  they  would  resort, 
had  they  the  power,  to  destroy  "  Partialism."  It  will  be  time 
enough  for  Universalism  to  boast  of  its  pacific  character  when  it 
shall  have  once  had  the  rod  of  power  in  its  own  hands  without 
using  it. 

We  are  often  cited  to  the  bloody  deeds  of  Papal  Rome  and 
the  persecutions  under  the  Episcopalians  and  Puritans.  These, 
it  is  said,  were  perpetrated  by  believers  in  endless  punishment, 
and  not  by  Universalists  ;  and  the  conclusion  is,  that  Universal 
ism  must  be  the  child  of  heaven.  But  cannot  Atheism  prove 
itself  in  a  very  good  condition  in  the  same  way  ?  The  sects 
named  as  persecuting  were  Christians  and  not  Atheists  ;  there 
fore,  Atheism  must  be  the  true  theory !  Not  a  few  of  those 
who  have  instigated  persecutions  no  more  believed  in  endless 
punishment  than  Mr.  "W.  does ;  but  in  consequence  of  the  un 
holy  connection  of  church  and  state,  as  found  in  some  parts  of 
Christendom,  they  have  persecuted  those  who  differed  from  the 
religion  of  the  state,  for  worldly  purposes,  regardless  of  their 
own  religious  views  concerning  the  future  condition  of  man. 
How  does  it  happen  that  we,  as  a  nation,  have  a  constitution 
protecting  us  in  our  religious  rights  ?  Are  we  indebted  to  Uni 
versalism  for  this  ?  Indeed,  Mr.  W.  's  idolized  form  of  Univer 
salism  is  less  than  forty  years  old,  (Sec.  CXXXIII,)  and  it  is 
well  known  that  when  the  people  of  the  United  States  adopted 
the  constitution,  there  were  but  few  to  be  found  calling  them 
selves  Restorationists,  and  that  all,  or  nearly  so,  of  the  different 
sects  were  receivers  of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment.  Yet 
from  such  a  people  is  transmitted  to  us  a  constitution  securing 
religious  liberty  to  all,  Universalists  not  excepted.  Away  then 
with  such  a  miserable  sophism  as  stands  at  the  head  of  this 
section. 


336  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

CXX.  When  we  speak  of  the  anger,  hatred  and  vengeance 
of  God,  (Ps.  7:11;  11:5;  Horn.  12  :  19,)  we  are  informed 
that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  attribute  human  passions  to  him. 
We  admit  that  we  are  not  to  attribute  anger  and  hate  to  God  in 
the  same  sense  that  man  is  excited  by  these  passions.  But  in 
revealing  himself  to  us  God  has  sometimes  used  a  figure  called 
antbropopathy,  by  which  he  attributes  human  passions  to  him 
self,  as  being  the  most  appropriate  ideas  of  his  ways  to  us,  of 
which  we  can  have  any  conception,  especially  when  discon 
nected  with  everything  weak  and  sinful  found  with  these  passions 
in  man.  If  we  do  not  impute  to  him  something  like  human 
passions,  and  thus  follow  his  own  example,  we  give  up  revealed 
truth  for  philosophical  ignorance.  Universalists  seem  not  to  be 
aware  that  compassion,  mercy,  pity,  desire,  and  love  are  all  hu 
man  passions,  which  they  readily  attribute  to  God,  and  that  we 
'  may  err  as  greatly  in  our  views  of  these,  as  in  our  views  of  the 
other  class.  They  hesitate  not  to  infer  from  the  promptings  of 
these  passions  in  man  how  they  must  be  exercised  in  God  to 
wards  his  creatures,  and  thus  they  make  them  the  same  in  God 
that  they  are  in  man.  When  we  imitate  God  by  speaking  of  his 
indignation,  fury,  wrath,  anger,  and  vengeance,  we  are  charged 
with  making  God  a  vindictive  tyrant.  Might  we  not  with  equal 
propriety  charge  our  opponents  with  representing  God  as  a  weak 
old  man  in  his  dotage,  or  as  some  cracked-brain  swain,  ready  to 
melt  away  with  love  ?  What  we  ask  of  Universalists  is,  that 
they  desist  from  this  mode  of  reasoning  upon  the  sterner  pas 
sions  which  God  has  attributed  to  himself,  or  else  that  they  show 
their  consistency  by  extending  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  to 
the  milder  one.  If  they  do  this  their  false  appeals  to  human 
sympathy  and  parental  affection  will  become  powerless.  God's 
anger,  love,  and  immutable  justice  all  harmonize.  See  Sections 
XV.  and  XXXVII. 

CXXI.     In  the  propagation  of  their  doctrine,  Universalists 
make  the  largest  professions  of  liberality  and  love  for  the  truth. 


Sec.   122.]          UN1VERSALISH    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  337 

They  are  willing  to  "  hear  both  sides;  "  and  Christians  are  often 
asked,  why  they  are  unwilling  to  hear  Universalists  preach,  to 
read  their  books,  and  listen  to  their  sermons  ?  In  answer  we 

say, 

1.  Christians  are  to    "have  no  fellowship  with  the  unfruit 
ful  works   of   darkness,  but  rather  reprove  them."      Eph.  5 : 

11. 

2.  The  reason  why  they  are  unwilling  that  men  should  hear 
Universalists,  and  read  their  books,  is,  not  because  they  fear  the 
truth,  but  because  they  fear  their  sophistries  and  perversions. 
They  are  so,  for  the  same  reasons  that  they  are  unwilling  their 
friends  should  hear  avowed    Infidels   lecture,   and   read  their 
works.     They  know  that  such  is  the  opposition  of  unrenewed 
minds  to  God's  truth,  and  their  inclination  to  error,  that  it  is  no 
uncommon  thing  for  men  to  be  exceedingly  skeptical  respecting 
the  plainest  scripture  truths,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  manifest  an 
astonishing  credulity  in  receiving  almost  any  absurdity  which  is 
offered  in  opposition  to  them.     This  is  true  of  Infidels  generally, 
and  it  is  strikingly  true  of  modern  Universalists. 

One  cunningly  devised  falsehood  in  favor  of  inclination,  and 
to  palliate  sin,  will,  upon  a  certain  class  of  minds,  have  more 
weight  than  ten  honest  and  solid  arguments  rebuking  sin  and 
craning  men  up  to  their  duty  to  their  God.  Universalism  is  a 
powerful  appeal  in  favor  of  depravity,  and  against  God's  penal 
ties.  It  says  to  irreligious  men,  "  Just  what  you  desire  the 
future  state  to  be,  it  shall  be,  irrespective  of  your  conduct  here." 
The  young,  some  of  whom  have  but  a  limited  knowledge  of  the 
Bible,  are  often  captivated  by  arguments,  as  forceless  in  reality 
as  a  feather  ;  just  because  the  doctrine  is  in  harmony  with  their 
feelings,  and  gives  them  the  largest  indulgence  th§y  could  ask  in 
sinful  pleasure. 

CXXII.  "  Preach  your  own  doctrine  and  let  others  alone," 
is  a  saying  quite  too  common  among  Christians.  If  by  it,  how 
ever,  is  meant  that  a  minister  should  not  evince  a  pugnacious 


338 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  IT. 


spirit,  that  he  should  not  be  a  lover  of  controversy,  that  he 
should  not  magnify  minor  differences  between  evangelical  Chris 
tians, —  if  this  is  what  is  meant,  we  have  no  objection  to  it.  But 
if  by  it  is  meant,  that  a  man  who  is  set  for  the  defence  of  the 
gospel  should  only  teach  his  own  doctrine,  and  never  expose  de 
structive  error,  we  demur.  So  did  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
so  did  not  Paul.  Suppose  a  very  alarming  disease  prevalent  in 
your  town,  and  the  skillful  physician  is  applying  a  remedy  with 
great  success.  While  he  is  doing  this,  a  quack  comes  along 
with  large  professions  of  skill,  administers  a  medicine  which  is 
exactly  the  reverse  of  the  successful  one,  and  is  proving  fatal  to 
all  who  take  it,  and  some  of  your  own  dear  friends  are  by  it  sent 
down  to  the  grave.  The  faithful  and  successful  physician  ana 
lyzes  the  spurious  medicine,  comes  out  fearlessly,  and  shows  the 
public  its  destructive  properties,  and  what  it  is  doing.  Would 
you  oppose  his  course,  under  these  circumstances,  and  cry  out, 
"  Administer  your  own  medicine  and  let  other  medicines  alone  ?  " 
No,  certainly  you  would  not.  The  world  is  diseased  by  sin ;  the 
gospel  is  the  remedy.  Universalism  is  a  spurious  gospel.  By 
the  showing  of  its  own  advocates,  it  is  opposed,  in  every  essential 
point,  to  evangelical  Christianity.  (Sec.  CXXXV.)  If  an 
error,  as  we  believe  it  is,  it  is  a  most  fatal  error.  Its  advocates 
are  administering  their  opiates,  and  many  sinners  are  put  to 
sleep  in  their  sins,  and  may  never  be  aroused  till  they  wake  up 
in  hell.  And  has  the  minister  done  all  his  duty,  when  he  has 
merely  preached  his  own  sentiments  ?  Before  Heaven,  we  think 
not. 

Perhaps  there  are  but  few  ways  in  which  they  have  deceived 
Christians  more,  than  by  their  professed  love  of  opposition,  for 
the  benefit  they  derive  from  it.  That  they  would  be  pleased 
with  opponents  unacquainted  with  their  theory  in  its  modern 
shape,  (Sec.  CXXV,)  and  who  have  not  the  ability  to  expose 
their  serpentine  windings,  we  doubt  not.  But  however  much 
they  may  bluster  at  the  time,  they  know  full  well  that  an  able 
exposure  of  their  system,  and  the  dishonest  means  by  which  it 


Sec.  122.]  UNIVERSALISH   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

is  supported,  clone   in  a  right  spirit,  is  always  an  injury  to  their 
cause.*     Hear  what  A.  C.  Thomas  says  upon  this  subject : 

"  I  do  not  coincide  in  opinion  with  those  who  declare,  that 
opposition  tends  to  the  advancement  of  Universalism.  On  the 
contrary,  I  am  satisfied  that,  had  it  not  been  for  opposition,  Uni 
versalism  would  be,  at  this  day,  the  predominent  religious  pro 
fession  in  the  United  States."  Trumpet,  No.  1056. 

This  is  from  one  of  the  most  pugnacious  among  them,  and 
one  who  is  well  acquainted  with  the  effects  of  opposition  upon 
the  order. 

In  exposing  Universalism,  wisdom  is  necessary,  as  well  as  in 
the  discharge  of  every  other  ministerial  duty.  When  there  are 
but  few  of  this  order  in  a  place,  and  they  have  no  regular 
preaching,  it  might  be  unwise  to  give  them  so  much  importance 
as  a  formal  course  of  lectures  would  seem  to.  But  where  there 
is  an  organization,  and  a  minister  leading  souls  to  destruction,  we 
do  not  believe  it  is  wisdom,  or  duty,  for  a  Christian  minister  to 
look  calmly  on  and  do  nothing.  After  suitable  preparation,  let 
him  call  the  attention  of  the  people  to  a  course  of  lectures,  and 
fearlessly,  in  the  spirit  of  Christ,  expose  the  infidel  character  of 
the  system,  and  all  the  dishonorable  methods  by  which  it  is 
supported  •  and  also  its  destructive  influence  upon  the  cause  of 
true  piety. 

Or  if  there  is  wanting  that  kind  of  ability  and  taste,  of  which 
many  able  ministers  are  destitute,  for  an  exposure  of  this  char 
acter  from  the  pulpit,  let  them  keep  their  people  informed  by  the 
circulation  of  suitable  books  and  tracts  upon  the  subject.  The 
Universalist  papers  are  filled  with  doctrinal  matter,  and  they  are, 
with  an  industry  worthy  of  a  better  cause,  pushing  their  doc- 

*  The  same  argument  which  forbids  an  effort  against  the  system,  because 
of  the  spasmodic  zeal  it  awakens,  lies  with  all  its  strength  against  revivals ; 
for  nothingrenders  Universalists  more  desperate  than  the  outpouring  of  God's 
spirit  among  the  people.  But  shall  we  not  labor  for,  and  welcome  revivals, 
lest  they  should  start  up  and  do  something  out  of  the  ordinary  course  ? 
Let  the  people  have  light,  either  from  the  pulpit  or  the  press,  or  both. 


340  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

trinal  books  and  tracts  into  almost  every  place.  (Sec.  CXL.) 
The  people  must  have  light,  and  especially  the  church.  In  the 
absence  of  this,  -we  shall  occasionally  find  a  morbid  sympathy 
springing  up  in  some  minds  in  favor  of  this  dogma,  or  they  may 
be  captivated  by  it  through  our  neglect.  Let  Christian  minis 
ters  do  their  duty  in  this  respect,  and  there  need  not  be  any  fear 
of  the  result.  Every  minister  will  of  course  choose  his  own 
method  of  doing  this  work,  but  let  it  by  all  means  be  done. 
Wavering  minds  will  be  established  in  the  truth,  and  Christians 
will  clearly  see  the  antichristian  character  of  Universalism. 

Corroborative  of  Mr.  Thomas's  view  is  the  decline  of  Univer 
salism  in  Maine.  There  is  no  State  in  the  Union  where  there 
has  been  so  much  decided  and  open  opposition  to  this  error  by 
lectures,  discussions,  and  publications,  as  in  this  State.  What 
has  been  the  result  ?  We  cannot  give  their  number  of  church 
members,  as  they  are  not  in  their  statistics.  Church  organiza 
tion,  in  which  they  engaged  with  so  much  zeal  a  few  years  since, 
was  an  uphill  business,  and  we  hear  but  little  about  it  now. 
There  are  a  few  localities  where  there  is  some  show  of  prosperi 
ty,  growing  mainly  out  of  the  wealth  connected  with  it ;  but 
Universalism,  as  a  whole,  is  greatly  on  the  decline  in  Maine. 
This  is  evident  from  the  decrease  in  the  ministry. 

The  statistics  of  the  order  are  before  us  in  the  Universalist 
Companion.  In  1844,  there  were  seventy-seven  preachers  in  the 
State.  In  1855,  there  are  fifty-seven.  So  there  is  not  only  no 
gain  for  eleven  years,  but  actually  a  decrease  during  that  time 
of  tiventy  ministers. 

The  following  description  is  given  of  the  cause  in  Maine  by 
the  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Maine  Convention  of  Uni- 
versalists.  He  says : 

"  Many  societies  are  without  preaching,  where  were  apparently 
promising  congregations.  Indeed  there  is  no  part  of  the  State, 
where  we  may  not  meet  with  meeting  houses,  dedicated  to  the 
preaching  of  doctrines  of  the  Reconciliation,  which  now  stand 
unoccupied,  seeming  to  say  to  us  in  saddened  tones,  *  Is  it 


SeC.   123.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  341 

nothing   to   you   all   ye  that  pass  by  ?  '  :       Banner,  July  16, 

1854. 

CXXIII.  Universalists  bring  our  Lord's  conversation  with 
the  Sadducees,  (Matt.  22  :  30  ;  Mark  12  :  25  ;  Luke  20  :  34- 
36,)  in  proof  of  the  salvation  of  all  in  the  future  state.  We 
admit  that  the  immortal  resurrection  is  here  revealed,  but  deny 
that  the  salvation  of  all  is  here  taught.  See  Sec.  XCL,  where 
Universalist  assumptions  are  exposed.  To  illustrate  their  work 
upon  numerous  other  passages,  we  will  just  show  the  reader  how 
a  twistical  Universalist  could  deprive  this  of  its  future  state 
reference,  if  he  found  it  for  his  interest  to  do  so.  In  doing  this 
we  have  only  to  apply  the  same  mode  of  argument  and  defini 
tion  of  terms  to  this  passage,  that  Universalist  divines  do  to 
others  where  the  same  expressions  are  found. 

1.  "This  world,"  and    "that  world."     Luke  20  :  34,  35. 
By  "this  world''    is  meant  this  age,  that  is,  the  Jewish  age  ; 
and  by  "  that  world  "  is  meant  that  aye,  that  is,  the   Christian 
age,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Guide  to  U.    See  also 
Sec.  IV. 

2.  "Resurrection"  (anastasis).       This  is  the   same    word 
which  occurs  in  John  5  :  29  and  Luke  14  :  14.     "  It  does  not 
necessarily  signify  restoration  to  life  after  natural  death."    Notes 
on  Par.,  p.  165.     As  the  resurrection  of  the  just  took  place 
when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  (Sec.  LIV,) 
and  as  all  that  were  "  in  the  graves  "   were  raised  at  the  same 
time,  some  to  damnation  and  others  to  life,  (John  5  :  29  ;  Sec. 
LXXXI,)  and  as  the  same  word  occurs  in  the  conversation  with 
the  Sadducees,  it  must  refer  to  the  same  event. 

3.  "  From   the  dead."      This  refers  to  Jews    and    Chris 
tians   at  the  Jerusalem  calamity,  for  they  must  have  been  in 
some  sense  dead,  or  they  could  not  have  come  forth  from  their 
graves  at  that  event.    (Sec.  LXXXI.)    It  is  clear  then  that  no 
reference  is  made  to  the  future  state  of  man. 

4.  "  Neither  can  they  die  any  more"     Our  ablest  divines, 


342  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

sucli  as  Mr.  Whittemore  and  Mr.  J.  B.  Dods,  have  shown  most 
conclusively,  (Guide,  yp.  164,  223,)  that  John  8  :  21,  and 
Rev.  21  :  8,  have  particular  reference  to  the  national  death  of 
the  Jews  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  The  true  sense  is 
this  :  The  Jews  having  died  a  national  death,  can  die  no 
more  as  a  nation.  All  must  see  that  the  future  state  is  not  in 
tended. 

5.  "  They  are  equal  unto  the  angels."     Our  greatest  men 
have  made  it  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam,  that  the  "  mighty  angels," 
2  Thess.  1:7,    "  and  all  the  holy  angels,"  Matt.  25  :  31,  (Sec. 
XLT,)  mean  the  polluted  heathen,  or  the  Roman  armies.  Notes 
on  Par.,  p.  103.     Surely  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  go  into  the 
future  world  to  become  equal  to  such  angels  ! 

6.  "  They  are  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven."     Matt. 
22  :  30.     Does  the  word  heaven  carry  it  into  the  future  state? 
By  no  means,  for  another  of  our  great  men  says:  "It  is  be 
lieved  that  there  is  no  one  place  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  the 
Bible,  where  it  obviously  means  life,  or  happiness,  or  the  place 
of  these  after  death."     (Sec.  LIII.)    This,  then,  makes  nothing 
against  our  position. 

7.  "  Neither  marry  or  are  given  in  marriage"     As  we 
have   shown  beyond  dispute,  that  this  resurrection  took  place 
when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age,  all 
must  see  that  it  must  have  been  impossible  to  have  entered  into 
the  conjugal  relation  in  such  a  season  of  consternation.     This 
saying  was  literally  fulfilled  at  that  time. 

8.  "  And  are  children  of  God,  being  children  of  the  resur 
rection"     We  have  shown  again  and  again  that  all  men  are  now 
the  children  of  God ;  hence,  the  Saviour  never  meant  to  say 
that  the  immortal  resurrection  would  make  them  children.     Dr. 
Campbell  has  shown,  that  agreeable  to  the  original  import  of  the 
word  anastasis,  (resurrection,)  "  rising  from  a  seat  is  properly 
termed  anastasis  ;  so  is  awakening  out  of  sleep,  or  promotion 
from  an  inferior  condition."     Notes  on  Par.,  p.  161.     Since, 
then,  there  are  so  many  resurrections  in  this  world,  we  are  not 


Sec.   124.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  343 

obliged  to  confine  this  expression  to  Jerusalem's  destruction,  and 
as  all  are  the  children  of  God  here,  it  is  not  referable  to  the  im 
mortal  resurrection.  The  true  sense,  as  here  employed,  is  obvi 
ously  this :  To  denote  the  process  by  which  men  are  raised  from 
non-existence  to  manhood,  and  thus  they  are  children  of  God, 
being  children  of  the  resurrection.  Do  we  not  often  inquire, 
where  such  and  such  a  man  was  raised  ?  Another  and  sufficient 
reason  why  this  passage  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  future 
state,  is,  it  will  not  stand  the  test  of  Mr.  Whittemore's  infallible 
rule.  (Sec.  CXV.)  Let  us  apply  it.  Does  it  say  that  all 
men  shall  be  as  the  angels  of  God  in  the  immortal  state  ?  Does 
it  say  that  all  men  shall  be  holy  and  happy  in  eternity  ?  Does 
it  say  that  this  resurrection  is  after  death?  "  As  nothing  of 
the  kind  is  said,  we  presume  nothing  like  it  is  meant." 

Here  we  have  that  which  is  as  truthful  and  conclusive  as  most 
Universalist  expositions.  With  their  license  we  can  deprive  all 
their  proof  texts  of  their  future-state  reference,  and  tumble  the 
most  of  them  into  Jerusalem.  Apply  their  interpretations  to 
the  expressions,  "resurrection,"  "die,"  "death,"  "  Christ's 
at  his  coming  "  "  the  end  "  and  " kingdom  of  God"  which 
occur  in  1  Cor.  15,  and  that  can  with  equal  ease  be  deprived  of 
its  future  reference,  and  thrown  into  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem.  Can  that  be  the  truth  of  heaven  which  relies  for  its  sup 
port  upon  such  a  method  with  the  Bible  ? 

CXXIV.  It  has  been  asserted  that  evangelical  Christians 
hold  that  a  belief  in  endless  punishment  constitutes  a  Christian. 
This  is  false.  They  constantly  assert  the  possibility  of  holding 
the  truth  in  unrighteousness.  What  we  contend  for  is  this,  that 
the  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible  ;  that  it  is  a  fundamental  one 
in  the  Christian  scheme  ;  that  it  is  one  of  those  weighty  motives, 
which  God  designs  should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  sinners  to 
arouse  them  to  seek  for  that  work  of  grace,  without  which  they 
cannot  be  Christians,  believe  what  they  will.  When  the  doc 
trine  of  endless  punishment  is  given  up,  other  important  doc- 


344  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

trincs  are  usually  abandoned,  and  all  the  motives  for  a  prayer 
ful,  godly  life  soon  go  by  the  board.  The  usual  result  of  dis 
carding  this  doctrine  is,  other  gross  errors  and  irreligion. 


"  The  breach,  though  small  at  first,  soon  opening  wide, 
In  rushes  folly  with  a  full-moon  tide ; 
Then  welcome  errors  of  whatever  size, 
To  justify  it  by  a  thousand  lies." 


These  words  of  Cowper  find  an  illustration  in  the  Universal- 
ism  of  America.  The  same  disposition  which  prompts  a  man  to 
disbelieve  eternal  punishment,  will  prompt  him  to  a  disbelief  of 
every  other  Christian  doctrine  which  his  reason  cannot  fully  com 
pass,  or  which  is  not  in  accordance  with  his  feelings.  These  are 
the  reasons  why  we  contend  for  the  doctrine,  and  not  that  simply 
believing  it  constitutes  a  Christian.  Depravity  is  the  same, 
whether  found  in  connection  with  orthodox  or  heterodox  views. 
The  question  is,  which  is  calculated  to  bring  a  sinner  to  Christ 
for  a  removal  of  that  depravity,  that  doctrine  which  says  that 
God's  favor  cannot  be  gained  or  lost  (Sec.  CVII.)  ;  that,  so  far 
as  the  future  is  concerned,  the  saint  and  sinner  are  on  a  perfect- 
level  (Sec.  XC.)  ;  or  that  which  threatens  sorrow  here  and  a 
positive  evil  in  the  world  to  come,  in  case  of  continuing  to  dis 
obey  the  gospel  ?  We  assert  that  the  latter  is  the  reformatory 
doctrine,  because  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  the  salvation  of 
sinners  by  the  labors  of  its  advocates  illustrate  it.  Ingenious 
men  may  give  an  air  of  plausibility  to  some  points  connected 
with  the  Universalist  theory,  but  they  can  point  to  none  re 
formed  and  made  pious  as  a  result  of  teaching  it.  Their  re 
formed  men  are  generally  at  a  distance,  in  some  other  town. 
Should  the  Maine  Liquor  Law  be  extensively  adopted,  it  will 
doubtless  render  hundreds  more  respectable  who  vociferate  for 
Universalism,  by  cutting  off  their  spiritual  supplies.  But 
such  reforms  must  be  credited  to  the  law,  and  not  to  their 
gospel 


SeC.  126.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  345 

CXXV.  There  are  many  very  able  ministers  who  well  un 
derstand  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  and  know  that  Universalism  is 
false,  who  are,  nevertheless,  somewhat  ignorant  of  the  crafty 
methods  resorted  to  for  its  defence.  The  difference  between  these 
and  Universalist  teachers,  is  this  :  The  latter  exert  all  their  in 
genuity  to  destroy  the  obvious  meaning  of  certain  portions  of 
the  scriptures ;  while  the  business  of  the  former  is,  to  enforce 
the  truth  as  they  find  it  in  the  Bible,  and,  under  God,  to  make 
men  pious.  The  objects  to  be  secured  by  the  two  are  very  dif 
ferent  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  considered  a  disparagement  to  a  good 
minister  of  Christ,  if  he  is  to  some  extent  unacquainted  with  the 
wiles  of  such  men.  Such  uninformed  persons,  however,  should 
be  cautious  how  they  engage  in  controversy  with  men  whose  sole 
business  is  to  shufHe  the  word  of  God,  as  truth  might  suffer  by 
their  inability  to  defend  it,  or  to  expose  the  sophistries  arrayed 
against  it.  One  part  of  their  craft  is,  to  represent  an  opponent 
as  a  giant  in  the  ranks  of  the  opposition  ;  and  if  he  is  a  D.  D., 
all  the  better,  if  he  is  only  ignorant  of  their  tactics,  or  has  not 
the  power  timely  to  command  his  own  resources.  If  such  dis 
cussions  are  ever  necessary,  none  should  join  issue,  but  such  as 
have  studied  the  last  edition  of  Universalism,  so  that  they  can 
say  with  Paul,  "  We  are  not  ignorant  of  his  (their)  devices." 
See  Sec.  CXXII. 

CXXVI.  A  while  since,  a  mighty  effort  was  put  forth  to 
make  the  world  believe  that  John  Wesley  was  a  Universalist. 
A  story  has  been  told  in  which  it  is  stated  that  he  said  he  "  fully 
believed  Universalism  but  had  not  made  known  the  fact  to  the 
world,  thinking  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the  promulgation  of 
the  sentiment."  A  writer  in  the  "  Newark  Eagle,"  who  signed 
himself  "  Verity,"  said,  "  He  (Mr.  Wesley)  did  not  answer  a 
work  written  by  Sir  George  Stonehouse.  He  and  others  had 
promised  to  do  it.  But  he  excused  himself  by  saying  it  would 
occupy  so  much  of  his  time  that  he  could  not  acquit  his  con- 
17 


346  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

science  before  God.     That  this  is  a  mere  subterfuge,   is  self- 
evident." 

So  says  Mr.  "  Verity. "  The  first  story  fixes  the  charge  of 
hypocrisy  upon  Wesley,  and  the  second  of  lying.  Whittemore, 
in  his  history,  names  Wesley  in  connection  with  Stonehonse,  but 
not  as  a  Universalist  then  or  at  any  subsequent  period.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  he  represents  him  as  saying  to  Stonehouse,  "  Bet 
ter  you  had  died,  George,  before  you  had  written  that  book." 
p.  237. 

Taking  into  the  account  Wesley's  profession  and  labors  till 
the  day  of  his  death,  the  whole  effort  amounts  to  this  :  John 
Wesley  was  a  good  Universalist,  a  base  hypocrite,  and  a  con 
founded  liar  !  A  brilliant  trinity  of  attributes,  well  harmonized, 
created  by  the  advocates  of  Universalism  for  the  benefit  of  the 
craft ;  but  vain  is  the  attempt  to  tack  them  on  to  John  Wesley. 
The  world  knows  too  much  of  him  for  that.  John  Wesley  a 
Universalist ! 

It  is  a  very  common  thing  for  the  leaders  in  the  order  to  assert 
that  their  doctrine  prevails  extensively  in  other  sects.  Mr.  Boy- 
den,  in  a  sermon  before  the  U.  S.  Convention,  says  :  "  I  am 
fully  persuaded  if  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  were  laid  open,  we 
should  find  thousands  who  are  supposed  to  be  men  in  orthodoxy, 
so  called,  but  really  are  babes  in  Universalism."  Banner, 
Nov.  2,  1844. 

That  is,  many  who  profess  to  be  strong  orthodox,  are  in  reality 
Universalists. 

A  writer  in  the  Universalist  Companion,  for  1852,  says : 
"Even  among  orthodox  sects,  many  members,  and  not  a  few 
clergymen,  secretly  hold  our  views." 

Brown,  in  his  History  of  Universalism,  p.  337,  gives  the  fol 
lowing  :  "  A  Calvinistic  clergyman  declared,  '  I  am  a  believer 
in  Universalism  ;  I  do  believe  all  will  be  saved  ;  but  it  will  not 
do  to  preach  it.'  Why,  sir?  '  I  cannot  get  supported  hand 
somely  and  comfortably  if  I  was  publicly  to  avow  this  doc 
trine.'  " 


SeC.   126.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  347 

Mr.  Brown  will  have  it  that  there  are  many  more  Universal- 
ists  of  this  class  in  the  ministry  of  Christian  churches.  Mr. 
Whittemore,  in  his  Modern  History  of  Universalism,  furnishes 
us  quite  a  list  of  these  concealed  Universalists.  Among  them 
he  names  (p.  383)  J.  Huntington,  D.  D.,  of  Coventry,  Conn., 
who,  as  he  states,  wrote  a  book  in  the  prime  of  his  life,  called 
"  Calvinism  Improved,"  teaching  Universalism.  The  manuscript 
he  kept  by  him  during  his  life,  and  made  provision  in  his  will 
for  its  publication  after  his  death.  Brown's  Hist,  of  Univ.,  p. 
339.  Here  then  is  a  Uriiversalist,  with  a  manuscript  by  him  for 
years,  containing  his  real  sentiments,  and  yet  all  the  while  sus 
taining  the  relation  of  pastor  to  a  Congregationalist  church,  and 
receiving  his  salary  from  those  who  think  him  a  believer  and 
teacher  of  orthodox  views.  In  this  transaction  we  have  a  clear 
evidence  of  his  belief  in  Universalism,  and  also  an  illustration 
of  its  blighting,  withering  influence  upon  tho  moral  feelings  of 
its  recipients.  Then  look  at  the  case  just  presented  from 
Brown's  History,  of  a  man  who  was  a  Universalist,  but  preached 
among  the  Calvinists  to  get  a  comfortable  support !  And  we  are 
informed  that  there  are  many  such  Universalists  in  other  sects. 
What  gross  hypocrisy  ! 

Could  an  enemy  have  given  Universalism  a  worse  character 
than  is  here  given  it  by  its  friends?  And  shall  we  be  charged 
with  slander,  if  we  say  the  doctrine  is  demoralizing.  O,  Uni 
versalism  !  "  Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge  thee."  In 
view  of  the  hypocrisy  of  Universalists  upon  this  subject,  a 
thought  occurs,  viz.:  No  believer  in  a  future  judgment  and  end 
less  punishment  will  ever  be  found  professing  to  be  a  Univer 
salist  all  his  days,  or  publishing  anonymous  books  advocating  the 
doctrine.  With  such  a  belief  he  would  feel  that  such  wicked 
reservation  and  deception  would  meet  him  in  the  judgment,  and 
send  his  soul  to  an  endless  hell.  Such  deception  upon  such  a 
subject,  in  connection  with  such  a  belief,  cannot  possibly  exist. 
Reader,  which  think  you  is  the  truth  of  God,  that  which  admits 
of  such  deception  upon  this  subject,  or  that  which  absolutely  for 
bids  it  ? 


348  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

One  thought  more.  All  are  aware  that  their  editors  have 
seized  with  great  avidity  upon  the  defections  in  the  membership 
and  ministry  of  Christian  churches,  given  them  the  highest  col 
oring  possible,  and  published  them  to  the  world  as  the  fruits  of 
Partialism.  But  what  authority  have  they  for  this,  since  there  are 
so  many  of  their  own  faith,  both  in  the  membership  and  minis 
try  of  these  same  churches  ?  It  would  be  a  very  natural  con 
clusion  that  such  unprincipled  men  are  just  the  men  to  commit 
other  deeds  of  wickedness. 

But  why  are  the  eyes  of  these  gentlemen  constantly  turned 
to  the  Christian  church  for  the  influence  of  their  sentiments  ? 
We  beg  of  them  to  look  for  a  moment  in  a  less  honorable  direc 
tion.  Look  at  the  ungodly  throng  of  profane,  drunken,  gam 
bling,  Sabbath  breaking  men,  to  be  found  more  or  less  in  every 
place  where  Universalism  obtains.  Some  of  these  rally  for  its 
support,  and  others  do  nothing  but  illustrate  it.  They  pay  no 
support  to  its  ministers,  and  seldom  listen  to  its  preaching.  It 
is  enough  for  them  to  know  that  Universalist  societies  are  formed, 
houses  built,  and  that  men  are  abroad  calling  themselves  gospel 
ministers,  teaching  that  "  God  is  not  angry  with  the  wicked 
every  day,"  and  the  impossibility  of  sinning  enough  to  incur  any 
more  punishment  than  shall  be  for  the  sinner's  good.  With 
such  influences  upon  them  they  are  wise  enough  not  to  pay 
money  to  ministers  for  a  bill  of  indulgence,  when  they  can  have 
it  gratis. 

We  beff  of  these  men  to  look  in  this  direction  and  witness  the 

O 

influence  of  their  glad  tidings  to  depravity  upon  this  class  of 
persons.  We  think  the  influence  upon  these  will  be  found  to  be 
no  better  than  it  is  on  those  in  the  Christian  churches,  of  which 
they  boast.  It  may  be  said  that  such  are  not  Universalists. 
But  they  are  not  shaken  off  in  this  way.  Speak  to  one  of  them 
about  his  duty  to  God  and  the  danger  of  his  soul,  and  he  will 
draw  forth  his  bill  of  indulgence  with  as  much  confidence  as  any 
poor  Papist  of  Luther's  time  ever  did.  He  is  not  to  be  fright 
ened,  for  God  is  too  good  to  send  his  creatures  to  hell.  And 


Sec.   128.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  349 

although  in  morals  he  is  waxing  worse  and  worse,  and  his  phys 
ical  nature  is  fast  sinking  by  his  vices,  yet  his  cherished  faith 
tells  him  he  is  only  ripening  for  glory  ! 

CXXVII.  Twistical.  As  this  word  is  used  a  few  times  in 
this  work,  the  reader  shall  have  its  history.  A  few  years  since 
Messrs.  Drew  and  Whittemore  got  into  a  quarrel  through  their 
respective  papers,  about  the  character  of  the  notorious  J.  B. 
Dods,  in  which  the  former  said  of  the  latter,  (^Banner,  March 
11,  1843)  :  "  We  have  for  at  long  time,  as  have  also  most  of 
our  brother  editors  and  preachers,  been  aware  that  Bro.  Whit 
temore,  when  his  mind  has  become  warped  by  prejudice  against 
friends,  as  well  as  foes,  is  one  of  the  most  unfair  and  twistical 
writers  connected  with  our  cause.  But  we  were  never  called  to 
experience  so  complete  and  final  proof  of  his  disregard  of  com 
mon  fairness  and  fraternal  courtesy  as  we  find  in  his  last  paper. 
We  will  just  say  that  in  only  fifty  lines  of  his  editorial  remarks, 
embracing  the  close  of  his  first  column  on  his  third  page,  we 
counted  and  marked  no  less  than  thirteen  errors,  which,  if  in 
tended,  are,  to  speak  plainly,  falsehoods  ;  or,  if  not  intended, 
are  mistakes  of  too  serious  a  nature  to  be  committed  by  a  man 
who  professes  to  understand  his  subject." 

Observe :  This  is  not  from  an  enemy  to  Universalism,  but 
from  one  of  the  fraternity.  Now  this  same  Mr.  Whittemore  has 
written  a  book  called  "  The  Guide  to  Universalism,"  a  book  of 
great  popularity  in  the  order,  in  which  he  professes  to  explain  all 
the  principal  texts  which  are  thought  to  oppose  Universalism. 
From  our  knowledge  of  his  writings,  we  think  Mr.  Drew  ex 
ceedingly  happy  in  his  effort  at  coining  a  word.  It  is  highly 
expressive,  especially  in  its  application  to  Universalist  divines, 
and  should  find  a  place  in  the  next  edition  of  Webster's  Dic 
tionary,  for  that  purpose  if  no  other. 

CXXVIII.  State  prisons  have  been  visited,  and  it  is  said 
the  most  of  the  prisoners,  when  questioned,  were  found  to  be 


350  UNIVERSALISM    NOT  OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

believers  in  endless  punishment ;  and  the  conclusion  is,  that  this 
doctrine  is  productive  of  vice,  while  Universalism  is  highly  con 
ducive  to  virtue.  Now  suppose  an  Atheist  were  to  visit  these 
Bame  prisons,  and  ask  each  convict  if  he  believed  in  the  being  of 
God  ;  doubtless  the  answer  in  almost  every  case  would  be  in  the 
affirmative.  Then,  according  to  the  reasoning  of  Universal- 
ists,  we  should  come  to  the  grave  conclusion,  that  a  belief 
in  God  is  detrimental  to  morals,  while  Atheism  is  favorable  to 
virtue  ! 

A  statement  has  been  extensively  circulated,  in  Universalist 
prints,  that  the  "  Legislature  of  Ohio  selected  at  one  time  a 
Methodist  chaplain  for  the  prison,  on  account  of  there  being 
more  Methodists  than  any  other  class  among  the  prisoners."  It 
is  also  stated  that  the  prisoners  were  consulted  in  the  choice. 
The  evident  design  is  to  make  the  impression,  that  the  convicts 
named  were  Methodists  when  they  entered  prison.  This  needs 
no  refutation.  Admitting  what  is  said  concerning  the  choice  of 
a  chaplain  to  be  true,  it  is  only  a  mark  of  the  wisdom  of  both  the 
Legislature  and  the  convicts  to  choose  an  evangelical  man  in 
stead  of  a  Universalist.  What  good  could  Universalism  do 
them  ?  What  good  results  from  it  to  wicked  men  out  of  prison  ? 
Does  it  reform  them  ?  Never.  If  modern  Universalism  is 
true,  evangelical  teaching  could  do  them  no  essential  injury ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  if  evangelical  sentiments  are  true,  Uni 
versalist  teaching  might  do  them  an  irreparable  harm.  Since, 
then,  Universalism  cannot  boast  of  infallibility,  that  system  may 
be  false  and  ours  true ;  this  being  the  case,  no  wise  man  would 
reject  evangelical  Christianity,  and  throw  himself  upon  Univer 
salism,  for  that  would  be  running  an  unnecessary  risk.  Let 
evangelical  religion  be  embraced  with  all  the  heart,  and  such  are 
safe,  whether  Universalism  be  true  or  false.  Shrewd  prisoners, 
away  from  the  exciting  influence  outside  the  prison  walls,  and 
having  time  for  reflection,  with  their  Bibles  before  them,  may  see 
the  worthless  character  of  Universalism,  and  find  the  best  of 
reasons  for  choosing  a  Christian  minister  to  instruct  them.  As 


Sec.  128.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 


351 


it  respects  those  who  once  professed  religion,  they  were  brought 
to  the  prison,  not  by  evangelical  principles,  but  by  acting  in  op 
position  to  them,  as  they  will  all  testify.  The  just  retributions 
of  eternity  were,  at  that  time,  removed  from  their  minds.  Their 
crimes  are  in  no  way  chargable  to  evangelical  sentiments.  But 
the  truth  is,  many  Universalists  do  find  their  way  into  the  state 
prisons,  though  if  inquired  of  might  not  admit  a  belief  of  it, 
for  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  the  most  zealous  supporters  of 
the  dogma  to  reply  in  the  negative,  when  questioned  upon  this 
subject,  assigning  as  a  reason  that  they  "are  not  good  enough 
to  be  Universalists:'  Now  these  exalted  views  of  Universal- 
ism,  and  this  extreme  modesty,  may  sometimes  obtain  in  the 
state  prison  as  well  as  elsewhere. 

But  Universalists  are  often  found  in  the  state  prison.  Rev. 
J.  B.  Finley,  who  was  sometime  chaplain  of  the  Ohio  prison,  and 
perhaps  the  very  man  who  was  chosen  at  the  time  named,  in 
his  "  Prison  Life,"  speaking  of  the  convicts,  says  : 

"  Amono1  the  number  was  an  old  man,  whom  I  knew  many 
years  ago  ;  and  he  was  then  a  villain,  which  he  is  up  to  this  day. 
He  professes  to  believe  in  God,  in  a  future  state,  and  in  heaven  ; 
but  affirms  that  all  men  as  soon  as  they  die  go  directly  to  the 
world  of  everlasting  happiness.  In  other  words  this  old  veteran 
among  scoundrels  is  a  notorious  Universalist."  p.  133. 

"  Universalism  has  been  the  means  of  bringing  many  of  my 
miserable  charge  to  their  present  ruin  ;  and  I  feel  called  upon 
to  give  it  my  most  severe  rebuke,  from  this  Golgotha,  where  the 
skulls  of  its  slain  victims  are  so  profusely  strown."  p.  27. 

Speaking  of  hardened  Infidels  in  the  prison,  he  says,  that  he 
found  the  ' '  most  of  them  had  gone  to  infidelity  through  the  con 
venient  door-way  of  Universalism."  p.  31. 

For  auo-ht  we  know,  not  a  few  of  those  in  the  prisons,  who 
profess  to  believe  future  punishment,  are  Universalists  at  heart, 
for  if  believers  in  the  doctrine  can  play  the  hypocrite  in  Chris 
tian  churches,  (Sec.  CXXVI,)  they  can  do  the  same  in  the 
state  prison,  especially  if  they  wish  to  aid  a  minister  of  the  order 


352  UNIYERSALISM    NOT    OP   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

in  making  a  report  against  "  Partialism."  "We  have  no  confi 
dence  in  these  prison  reports  from  Universalist  ministers.  They 
make  them  to  serve  their  errors,  and  their  bill  of  indulgence 
gives  them  all  the  latitude  they  wish  in  the  work. 

CXXIX.  The  great  numbers  that  have  been  converted  from 
the  Partialist  ministry,  as  it  is  called,  to  Universalism,  is  an  im 
portant  item  with  editors  of  the  order,  to  be  kept  before  the 
people.  But  do  they  ever  inform  their  readers  of  the  vast  dis 
proportion  that  exists  between  their  ministry  and  all  others  put 
together?  No;  for  this  would  destroy  all  their  capital.  Ac 
cording  Dr.  Baird's  Report  of  Religion  in  America,  before  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  in  Paris,  Aug.  5,  1855,  which  was  pre 
pared  with  great  care  and  accuracy,  the  Protestant  evangelical 
ministry  in  the  United  States,  number  as  follows  : 

Episcopal,  1,714;  Congregationalist,  1,848  settled,  and  479 
without  charge.  Different  orders  of  Baptists,  8,525 ;  Presby 
terian,  all  orders,  5,889.  Different  denominations  of  Meth- 
dists,  travelling  and  local  ministry,  22,198  ;  Lutherans,  980  ; 
Mennonists,  250  ;  Moravians,  28.  Cast  these  figures  and  we 
have  an  aggregate  of  42,111.  Add  to  this  822  licentiates 
among  the  Presbyterians,  as  reported  by  Dr.  Baird,  and  the  pro 
fessors  in  colleges  and  seminaries,  many  of  whom  are  ordained 
ministers,  and  also  the  ministry  of  the  orthodox  Quakers,  num 
bers  unknown,  and  there  cannot  be  less  than  43,000  ministers 
in  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  United  States.  But  for  our 
purpose,  and  not  to  overrate  numbers,  we  will  call  the  number 
40,000. 

According  to  the  Universalist  statistics  for  1855,  they  have  in 
the  United  States  646  preachers,  39  of  which  are  marked  as 
"  formerly  belonging  to  the  Partialists."  Now  the  question  is, 
if  39  have  been  converted  to  Universalism  out  of  40,000  be 
lievers  in  evangelical  doctrines,  how  many  must  be  converted 
from  646  Universalists  to  evangelical  views  to  make  it  equal  ? 
Figures  will  show  that  if  one  only  can  be  found  who  has  left  the 


Sec.   130.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  353 

Universalist  ministry,  and  is  now  a  minister  in  an  evangelical 
church,  that  one  is  more  in  proportion  than  the  thirty-nine,  of 
which  Universalists  boast.  Can  one  be  found  ?  Why  then  do 
they  not,  like  honest  men,  state  the  vast  disproportion  here  set 
forth  ?  The  reader  can  easily  judge  why.  See  Sec.  CXXXIY. 
and  CXXXVIL 

CXXX.  "  Would  it  be  merciful  in  God  to  suffer  endless 
punishment  ?  that  is,  would  it  be  merciful  to  the  sufferer  ?  Can 
that  be  just  which  is  not  merciful  ?  Do  not  cruelty  and  injustice 
go  hand  in  hand?" 

"We  freely  admit  that  the  infliction  of  endless  punishment 
upon  sinners,  is  not  a  merciful  act,  but  is  directly  opposed  to  the 
exercise  of  mercy.  The  claims  of  justice  and  mercy  never  con 
flict  with  each  other;  and  hence,  though  we  admit  that  endless 
punishment  is  not  merciful,  we  deny,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  is 
any  violation  of  mercy.  Justice  and  mercy  are  distinct  princi 
ples,  and  may  be  exercised  conjointly,  or  one  may  be  exercised 
without  any  manifestation  of  the  other,  and  yet  without  violating 
either.  When  God  chastises  his  children,  as  in  the  case  of  all 
corrective  and  sanctified  afflictions,  justice  and  mercy  are  both 
displayed ;  justice,  because  the  punishment  is  what  we  deserve, 
and  mercy  because  it  is  sanctified  to  our  good.  When  God  for 
gives  sinners  without  punishment,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Nine- 
vites,  mercy  is  displayed  without  any  manifestation  of  justice  in 
the  case,  yet  justice  is  not  violated.  When  God  cuts  off  the 
sinner,  as  in  the  case  of  the  old  world,  the  Sodomites,  and  many 
others  which  might  be  mentioned,  he  displays  his  justice  without 
any  manifestation  of  mercy,  yet  there  is  nothing  unmerciful  in  it, 
since  mercy  claims  nothing  in  these  cases,  they  being  no  longer 
subjects  of  mercy. 

"  The  idea  that  Universalists  make  so  prominent,  that  every  act 
of  the  divine  administration  must  be  an  act  of  mercy,  to  save 
his  government  from  impeachment,  has  no  foundation  in  the 
Bible.  The  scriptures  make  a  clear  distinction  between  mercy 


354  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

and  justice,  between  grace  and  wrath,  and  between  blessings  and 
curses.  An  act  of  mercy  never  flows  from  simple  justice,  but  is 
an  offspring  of  goodness,  while  wrath  never  proceeds  from 
mercy,  but  is  insulted  justice  taking  vengeance  upon  the  guilty. 
The  Bible  does  not  pretend  that  mercy  and  justice  are  equally 
displayed  in  the  case  of  every  subject  of  the  divine  government ; 
'  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and 
whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.'  Rom.  9  : 18.  '  For  he  shall  have 
judgment  without  mercy  that  hath  showed  no  mercy.'  James 
2:13. 

"  These  scriptures,  together  with  many  more  which  might  be 
produced,  show  that  every  act  of  the  divine  administration,  is 
not  an  act  of  mercy. 

1 '  But  it  is  asked  :  '  Can  that  be  just  which  is  not  merciful  ? ' 
This  has  been  already  answered  above,  but  we  will  answer  it 
again  by  saying,  Yes,  an  act  may  be  just  without  being  merciful. 
We  have  just  quoted  a  text  which  says  certain  characters  shall 
have  judgment  WITHOUT  MERCY.  Now,  judgment  without 
mercy  cannot  be  merciful,  yet  it  must  be  just,  There  are  many 
cases  in  which  an  action  may  be  just  and  not  be  merciful.  It 
may  be  that  justice  requires  that  the  murderer  shall  be  hanged  ; 
but  it  is  not  an  act  of  mercy  even  to  a  murderer  to  hang  him.  A 
rich  man  may  lend  money  to  a  poor  man,  and  justice  may  require 
the  poor  man  to  pay  it  again,  but  mercy  does  not  require  it, 
since  the  rich  man  is  better  off  without  it  than  he  is  with  it, 
'  He  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  WITHOUT  MERCY.'  Heb.  10  : 
28.  Was  there  not  justice  without  mercy  ?  But  it  is  asked, 
'  Do  not  cruelty  and  injustice  go  hand  in  hand  ?  '  Not  neces 
sarily  ;  an  act  may  be  cruel  without  being  unjust :  or  an  act 
may  be  unjust  without  being  cruel.  It  would  be  unjust  for  a 
poor  man  to  cheat  a  rich  man  out  of  a  bushel  corn,  but  it  would 
not  be  cruel.  On  the  other  hand  it  might  be  very  cruel  for  a 
rich  man  to  take  a  poor  man's  last  bushel  of  corn  to  satisfy  a 
just  debt,  but  it  would  not  be  unjust. 

"  In  all  this,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  injustice  of 


Sec.  131.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  355 

endless  punishment  is  taken  for  granted,  without  any  effort  to 
prove  it.  If  it  could  be  proved  that  endless  punishment  would 
be  unjust,  then  it  might  be  proved  that  it  would  be  unmerciful ; 
or  if  it  could  be  proved  that  it  would  be  unmerciful,  that  is, 
contrary  to  the  claims  of  mercy,  then  it  might  be  proved  that 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  gospel,  that  it  would  be  unjust : 
but  until  one  of  these  points  is  proved,  independently  of  the 
other,  no  advance  is  made  in  the  argument.  It  amounts  to  this  : 
Endless  punishment  is  unjust  because  it  is  unmerciful ;  and  it  is 
unmerciful  because  it  is  unjust.  Such  arguments  cannot  con 
vince  those  who  have  minds  to  think  for  themselves.  If  indeed 
it  may  be  called  argument,  it  is  argumentum  ad  ignorantiam,  ad 
captandum  vulgus.  An  argument  founded  on  the  ignorance  of 
fact  to  ensnare  the  vulgar."  Sivord  of  Truth. 

CXXXI.  "  Universalism  will  do  to  live  by,  but  it  will  not 
do  to  die  by."  There  could  be  no  greater  mistake.  The  only 
thing  to  be  determined  is  this  :  is  it  true  or  false  ?  If  false,  it 
will  do  neither  for  life  or  death.  Religious  error  is  never  con 
ducive  to  a  sound  morality,  while  religious  truth  is.  Universal- 
ism  is  false  ;  it  is  an  evil  tree,  and  therefore  cannot  bring  forth 
good  fruit.  It  is  hoped  that  the  senseless  saying,  "It  will  do 
to  live  by,  but  not  to  die  by,"  will  never  again  be  uttered  by 
any  lover  of  truth.  We  need  the  same  religion  in  life  that  we 
do  in  the  dying  hour.  As  it  respects  the  boasted  support  of 
Universalism  in  death,  it  is  all  a  delusion.  A  mere  willingness 
to  die  is  no  sure  evidence  of  Christian  truth  or  character. 
Heathen  devotees  are  willing  to  die  ;  and  Infidels,  regardless  of 
the  future,  have  sometimes  been  willing  to  die.  Men  with  con 
sciences  "  seared  with  a  hot  iron,"  and  hearts  steeped  in  crime, 
have  also  evinced  a  willingness  to  die.  Some  Univcrsalists  have 
so  long  resisted  God's  spirit  and  rejected  his  truth,  that  they  are 
left  to  "believe  a  lie,"  (2  Thess  2:10-12,)  and  some  die 
while  under  this  delusion. 

Others  among  them  who  have  made  less  progress  in  their  war- 


356  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  IT. 

fare  with  God,  have  been  aroused  to  a  sense  of  their  danger  on 
the  very  verge  of  eternity,  finding  it  to  be  a  fearful  truth,  that 
Universalism  "  will  not  do  to  die  by."  When  a  poor  sinner  is 
thus  awakened,  it  calls  into  requisition  all  the  skill  his  Univer- 
salist  attendants  are  capable  of  to  keep  it  from  the  public  ear, 
and  also  to  prevent  intercourse  with  Christians.  Many  such 
have  been  smuggled  out  of  the  world  without  a  Christian  to 
counsel  them,  or  to  offer  a  prayer  in  their  behalf.  It  is  known 
that  a  powerful  influence  often  goes  out  from  the  death-bed 
scene,  in  opposition  to  their  sentiments ;  hence  unnecessary  re 
strictions  are  often  imposed  to  prevent  Christians  from  visiting 
the  sick  and  dying,  and  warnings  have  been  hushed  which  would 
have  carried  conviction  through  whole  neighborhoods.  There  is 
no  end  to  the  deceptions  used  to  produce  the  impression  that 
Universalism  yields  true  support  in  death. 

CXXXII.  Was  the  belief  of  endless  punishment  common, 
both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  our  Saviour's  time  ? 

Univcrsalists  shall  speak  for  themselves,  as  their  testimony 
will  not  be  doubted  upon  this  point. 

"  The  Pharisees,  it  is  well  known,  believed  in  the  endless 
punishment  of  human  souls."  Lectures  by  W.  N.  Fernald,  p. 
79.  "  It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Jews,  in  our  Saviour's 
day,  maintained  the  Pagan  notion  of  immortal  happiness  for  the 
righteous,  and  undying  pain  for  the  sinner."  Letter  in  the 
Trumpet  of  Feb.  3,  1838,  by  W.  C.  Hamcom,  a  Universalist 
minister.  "  That  the  Pharisees  believed  in  a  punishment  after 
death,  we  do  not  deny."  Whittemore's  Notes  on  the  Parables, 
p.  62.  "Jews  and  heathen  believed  in  endless  punishment." 
Balfour's  Essays,  p.  326. 

The  following  will  show  how  extensively  it  prevailed  among 
the  Jews  when  our  Saviour,  the  greatest  of  teachers,  sojourned 
among  them.  Mr.  Balfour,  in  his  Inquiry,  p.  260,  where  he 
attempts  to  show  that  the  Jews  obtained  their  views  of  endless 
punishment  from  the  heathen,  says  :  "  The  introduction  of  this 


Sec.  132.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  357 

and  other  heathen  opinions  among  the  Jews  was  gradual,  but  in 
the  days  of  our  Lord  had  become  general,  with  perhaps  the  ex 
ception  of  the  sect  of  Sadducees."  This  sect  composed  but  a 
small  part  of  the  Jewish  nation. 

Were  Christ  and  his  apostles  Uhiversalists  ?  Were  they 
believers  in  no  future  and  eternal  punishment  f 

Most  assuredly  they  were,  if  Universalism  is  true.  If  they 
were  not,  then  it  is  false.  No  time  need  be  spent  to  prove  this. 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  then,  being  Universalists,  spent  their  time 
and  preached  among  those  entirely  opposed  to  this  doctrine,  and 
believers  in  endless  punishment. 

Was  it  any  part  of  the  ivork  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  to 
point  out  and  rebuke  the  errors  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived  ? 
Mr.  Whittemore  shall  answer  : 

"  Our  Saviour  when  on  earth  labored  hard  to  root  up  the 
plants  which  his  Father  had  not  planted.  He  knew  that  error 
was  injurious  to  man,  and  that  he  performed  an  act  of  kindness 
and  duty  in  exposing  it.  How  careful  was  he  to  point  out  the 
errors  which  men  had  imbibed.  '  Te  have  heard,'  said  he,  '  that 
it  hath  been  said,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.  But 
I  say  unto  you,  resist  not  evil,  &c.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath 
been  said,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,  and  hate  thine  enemy. 
But  I  say  unto  you,  love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you.'  He  detailed  some  of 
the  errors  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  relative  to  swearing  by 
the  gold  of  the  temple,  and  the  gilt  upon  the  altar ;  and  called 
them  blind  guides.  He  was  careful  also  to  point  out  the  errors 
of  their  conduct,  as  well  as  of  their  opinions.  The  apostles  fol 
lowed  our  Saviour  in  their  practice.  '  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
no  small  dissension  and  disputation  with  '  '  certain  men  which 
came  down  from  Judea,'  and  taught  the  brethren  that  they 
could  not  be  saved,  except  they  were  circumcised  after  the  man 
ner  of  Moses.  They  endeavored  to  root  up  a  plant  which  God 
had  not  planted.  It  would  be  a  task  far  too  arduous  to  mention 


358  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

all  the  instances  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  pointing  out  and  contending  against  the  errors  of  the 
age  in  •which  he  lived."  Trumpet,  No.  750. 

Here  it  is  admitted,  yea,  contended  for,  by  Mr.  W.,  that  the 
Saviour  was  careful  to  point  out  the  errors  which  men  had  im 
bibed,  and  that  so  numerous  are  the  instances  where  Christ  and 
his  apostles  have  pointed  out  and  contended  against  the  errors  of 
the  age  in  which  they  lived,  that  it  would  be  a  task  far  too 
arduous  to  mention  all  that  are  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 

Do  Universalists  of  our  time  deem  endless  punishment  the 
chief  of  errors,  and  do  they  vigorously  and  incessantly  oppose 
it? 

Mr.  Drew,  one  of  the  great  men  of  the  order,  shall  answer  : 

Speaking  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  he  says  (Banner,  Feb. 
2,  1841)  :  "  We  believe  it  to  be  the  greatest  error  of  our  times 
—  one  fraught  with  the  worst  results  to  society."  "Put  all 
the  other  errors  of  the  world  into  one,  and  this  would  not  equal 
in  magnitude  that  to  which  we  refer.'''  "  Is  it  any  longer  a 
wonder  to  your  mind,  reader,  that  we  as  Universalists  should 
employ  so  much  of  our  time  in  preaching  and  writing  against 
that  grand  error  t  Nay,  but  we  must  doit."  In  keeping 
with  these  extracts,  are  their  pulpits  and  presses  generally.  This 
is  but  a  sample  of  what  might  fill  volumes,  indicative  of  the 
views,  feelings,  and  labors  of  these  men. 

Have  we  any  account  whatever  that  Cltrist  and  his  apostles 
treated  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  as  an  error,  by  re 
buking  it,  showing  its  fatal  effects,  and  cautioning  the  people 
against  it  ? 

Now  here  is  the  Great  Teacher,  who  has  come  from  heaven  to 
teach  Universalism,  and  called  and  commissioned  his  apostles  to 
engage  in  the  same  work.  Mr.  Whittemore  says  of  him  that  he 
was  careful  to  point  out  the  errors  which  men  had  imbibed; 
and  so  numerous  are  the  instances  where  Christ  and  his  apostles 
have  contended  against  the  errors  of  their  age,  that  it  would  be 
a  task  far  too  arduous  to  mention  all  that  are  recorded  in  the 


Sec.   132.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE    BIBLE.  359 

New  Testament.  They  commenced  and  exercised  their  minis 
try  among  believers  in  endless  punishment,  an  error  so  great  that 
Mr.  Drew  says  of  it,  "  Put  all  the  other  errors  of  the  world  into 
one,  and  this  would  not  equal  it  in  magnitude."  Now  we  ask> 
may  we  not  expect  to  find  something  very  explicit,  decided,  and 
pointed  from  the  Son  of  God,  in  opposition  to  this  error ;  some- 
thino-  that  shall  make  the  matter  clear  to  the  church  in  all  after 

O 

ages,  something  at  least  analogous  to  the  efforts  against  it  by 
modern  Univcrsalist  preachers?  We  should  certainly  expect 
this.  But  what  is  the  fact  ?  It  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  all 
the  Scriptures  that  Christ,  or  any  of  his  followers,  ever  spent  a 
moment's  time  in  disproving  the  doctrine,  or  in  portraying  to 
their  hearers  its  dreadful  effects,  or  in  warning  them  against  it. 
We  boldly  assert  that  not  a  single  instance  of  this  character 
can  be  found.  Let  Universalists  produce  one,  if  they  can. 

To  what  shall  we  attribute  this  silence  ?  Could  not  the  Sa 
viour  perceive  the  dreadful  effects  of  this  error,  as  well  as  men 
in  our  day  ?  Or  perceiving,  had  he  no  heart  to  feel  as  well  as 
they  ?  Had  pity  left  the  Son  of  Man  ?  And  what  is  still  more 
surprising,  he  did  explicitly  point  out  and  correct  other  errors 
which  Were  as  the  pebble  to  the  mountain  when  compared  with 
this,  if  we  may  believe  the  smallest  part  of  what  its  opponents 
say  of  it  He  faithfully  exposed  the  errors  of  the  Pharisees ; 
such  as  their  superstitious  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  their  wash 
ing  of  hands  and  pots,  their  making  long  prayers,  the  incon 
sistency  of  their  "  tithing  the  mint,  anise  and  cummin,"  while 
they  neglected  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law,  and  many  other 
things  :  but  he  wholly  passed  over  this  great  error.  The  apos 
tles  too,  were  often  found  opposing  errors  of  little  consequence 
compared  with  this,  if  Universalism  is  true.  "  How  boldly  and 
explicity  Paul  opposes  the  sentiment,  that  '  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law  men  could  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.'  With  what  a 
masterly  argument  he  overthrew  the  Sadducean  heresy,  that 
'there  is  no  resurrection.'  How  fearlessly  and  directly  he 
denounced  the  heresy  of  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,  that  '  the 


360  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

resurrection  was  already  past.'  Indeed,  a  very  considerable 
portion  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  is  taken  up  in  opposing  the  prev 
alent  errors  of  the  times."  In  the  book  of  Acts,  too,  we  find 
prevailing  errors  exposed,  and  faithful  reproof  administered  and 
caution  given,  by  different  apostles.  Also,  in  the  Epistles  of 
James,  Peter,  John  and  Jude,  we  find  the  errors  of  the  times 
pointedly  rebuked  and  glaringly  exposed.  But  nowhere  in  the 
book  of  Acts,  or  any  of  the  Epistles,  do  we  learn  that  they  ever 
rebuked  the  doctrines  of  a  future  judgment,  and  an  endless  pun 
ishment.  How  unlike  modern  Universalists,  whose  chief  labor 
consists  in  exposing  what  they  call  their  dreadful  effects,  and 
appealing  to  the  sympathies  of  men  respecting  them  ! 

Let  us  further  inquire, 

Did  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  teach  a  future  judgment 
and  eternal  punishment  ?  Did  they  use  language  calculated  to 
confirm  those  they  addressed  in  these  errors,  if  they  ivere  such? 

To  this  we  reply,  they  most  certainly  did.  To  say  nothing  of 
the  impression  Matt.  25  :  31-46  always  makes  upon  the  mind 
of  the  unsophisticated  reader,  we  think  there  is  not  one,  at  all 
acquainted  with  Jewish  belief  relative  to  a  future  state,  but  must 
be  convinced  that  our  Lord's  Jewish  hearers,  when  he  uttered 
this  passage,  must  have  understood  him  as  teaching  a  general 
judgment,  and  endless  bliss  and  misery.  See  an  extract  from 
Josephus,  Sec.  XLI. 

"In  hell  (hades}  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments." 
Luke  16  :  23.  Mr.  Balfour  admits,  (Inq.,  pp.  74-79,)  that 
when  our  Saviour  spoke  these  words,  "  the  opinion  prevailed 
among  the  Jews  that  there  were  torments  in  Hades;  "  and  he 
will  have  it  that  our  Lord  speaks  in  accordance  with  popular 
opinions.  The  Saviour  then,  instead  of  opposing  a  dangerous 
and  prevailing  error,  speaks  in  accordance  with  popular  opinion 
upon  the  subject.  How  then  must  his  hearers  have  understood 
him  ?  He  qualifies  nothing.  He  must  have  been  understood 
as  teaching  torments  in  the  invisible  or  spirit  world. 


SeC.  132.]  UNtVERSALISM   NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE.  361 

For  understanding  the  language  of  the  Bible,  the  following 
common-sense  rule  is  given  by  an  eminent  writer  : 

"  The  meaning  of  a  word  used  by  any  writer,  is  the  meaning 
affixed  to  it  by  those  for  whom  he  immediately  wrote.  For  there 
is  a  kind  of  natural  compact  between  those  who  write  and  those 
who  speak  a  language  ;  by  which  they  are  mutually  bound  to 
use  words  in  a  certain  sense  :  he,  therefore,  who  uses  such  words 
in  a  different  signification,  in  a  manner  violates  the  compact,  and 
is  in  danger  of  leading  men  into  error."  Home's  Introd.,  vol. 
1,  p.  325. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  rule  applies  with  force  to  the  subject 
under  consideration.  As  a  few  out  of  the  many,  the  reader  is 
referred  t<.-  the  following  texts.  Mark  3  :  29 ;  Luke  12  :  4,  5  ; 
John  5  :  28,  29  ;  Matt.  10  :  15-28  ;  Rom.  2  :  4-16  ;  14  : 
10-12  ;  Heb.  6:1,2;  9  :  27,  28 ;  2  Thess.  1  :  7-10  ;  2  Pet. 
2  :  4-9.  If  the  belief  of  those  to  whom  these  texts  were  ad 
dressed  is  considered,  and  also  the  labored,  unnatural,  and 
absurd  interpretations  Universalists  are  under  the  necessity  of 
giving  to  destroy  their  force,  what  candid  mind,  we  ask,  but 
must  see  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  not  only  did  not  oppose  the 
doctrines  of  future  judgment  and  endless  punishment,  but  that 
they  actually  did  sustain  them  by  their  own  teachings  ? 

Let  us  again  inquire, 

Did  either  Jews  or  Gentiles  oppose  Christ  and  his  followers 
for  teaching  the  future  salvation  of  all  men,  or  for  rejecting 
the  opposite  doctrine  ? 

There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  the  Scriptures  where  they 
met  with  such  opposition.  Universalists  have  often  asserted  that 
Christ  was  opposed  for  the  same  cause  they  are  now,  viz.:  his 
Universalism.  But  this  is  mere  assumption,  without  any 
foundation  either  in  the  history  of  our  Lord  or  the  Pharisees. 
That  the  Pharisees  were  the  enemies  of  Christ,  is  well  known  ; 
and  as  such,  accused  him  of  many  things,  such  as  his  being  an 
enemy  to  Caesar  ;  as  in  league  with  Beelzebub  ;  a  blasphemer, 
&c.  On  his  trial,  Pilate  said  to  him,  "Behold  how  many 


362  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

tilings  they  witness  against  thee;"  but  we  look  in  vain  to  find 
that  they  ever  charged  him  with  holding  and  teaching  no  future 
and  eternal  punishment  for  the  wicked.  The  Pharisees  being 
his  enemies,  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  being  gen 
erally  believed,  both  among  Jew's  and  Gentiles,  might  we  not 
reasonably  suppose  that  Christ's  being  a  "  perfect  Uriiversalist," 
would  have  occupied  a  prominent  place  in  the  charges  brought 
against  him  from  time  to  time.  But  upon  this  point  there  is  a 
dead  silence.  He  never  complained  of  the  Jews  for  holding  the 
doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  neither  did  the  Jews  of  him 
for  holding  the  salvation  of  all  men.  The  same  is  true  of  all  his 
apostles,  who  labored  both  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  For 
instance,  look  at  the  charges  brought  against  Paul  at  different 
times ;  but  never  is  he  charged  with  teaching  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  In  the  vindication  of  his  character  from  heresy  (Acts 
24  :  15),  he  says:  "  And  (I)  have  hope  toward  God,  which 
they  (the  Jews)  themselves  allow,  that  there  shall  be  a  resur 
rection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust."  What  did 
the  Jews  allow  ?  None  will  assert  that  they  allowed,  or  believed, 
that  all  men  would  be  ushered  into  bliss  by  the  resurrection. 
But  they  did  believe  that  the  just  and  unjust  would  be  raised, 
and  judged  ;  and  that  one  class  would  be  welcomed  to  bliss,  and 
the  other  sentenced  to  endless  punishment.  This  was  Paul's 
belief.  All  are  aware  of  the  great  labor  of  Univcrsalists  to  por 
tray  before  the  people  the  dreadful  consequences  of  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  punishment.  J3ut  be  it  known  that  there  is  not  a 
single  precedent  for  this  course  in  all  the  Bible.  They  have 
not  produced  one,  for  the  good  reason  that  they  cannot. 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  while  they  fail  to  give  one  text  to 
show  that  either  our  Saviour  or  any  of  his  apostles  ever  came  in 
collision  with  either  Jew  or  Gentile  upon  the  doctrine  in  question, 
they  do  bring  a  solitary  text  in  which  they  profess  to  think 
Christ  warned  his  disciples  against  it.  It  is  this:  Matt.  16  :  6, 
"  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them,  beware  of  the  leaven  (doctrine, 
v.  12,)  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees."  Universalists 


Sec.  132.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 


363 


will  have  it  that  this  means,  "  beware  of  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment."  But  did  the  Sadducecs  believe  that?  See  Sec. 
XCVL,  where  the  true  sense  is  given,  and  the  perversion 
exposed. 

There  is  one  text  more  they  sometimes  bring,  to  prove  that 
Paul  and  others  were  persecuted  for  preaching  their  faith.  It  is 
1  Tim.  4  : 10  ;  "  Therefore  we  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach, 
because  we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men,  especially  of  those  that  believe."  That  this  is  a  perversion 
may  be  seen,  Sec.  XCV. 

A  favorite  argument  to  prove  Christ  and  his  apostles  Univer- 
salists,  may  be  briefly  stated  thus  : 

The  Pharisees  hated  Christ  and  his  apostles ;  the  Pharisees 
were  Partialists  ;  therefore  Christ  and  his  apostles  must  have 
been  Universalists.  Their  disciples  often  use  this  argument  in 
substance,  if  not  in  form,  and  they  obtain  it  from  their  teachers ; 
for  none  can  sit  long  under  their  ministry,  without  learning  from 
them  that  the  hatred  the  Pharisees  bore  to  Christ  and  his  apos 
tles,  was  on  account  of  their  Universalism.  This,  you  will  see, 
is  a  very  easy  method  to  prove  people  Universalists.  Let  us  try 
it  again.  The  Pharisees  hated  all  heathens  ;  the  Pharisees  were 
Partialists ;  therefore  the  millions  of  heathen  must  have  been 
Universalists.  So  you  see  that  by  this  simple  process,  not  only 
Christ  and  his  apostles  are  made  Universalists,  but  all  the 
heathen. 

Other  grounds  of  difference,  besides  a  point  or  two  of  doctrine, 
may  call  forth  hatred.  Papists  have  persecuted  Protestants, 
and  put  them  to  death,  yet  they  have  ever  agreed  upon  some 
points  of  doctrine.  We  do  not  contend  that  Christ  taught  or 
sanctioned  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees.  Christ  called  them 
hypocrites,  a  generation  of  vipers,  and  threatened  them  with  the 
damnation  of  hell,  and  claimed  in  opposition  to  their  views  to  be 
the  Messiah.  Yet  Universalists,  it  would  seem,  can  see  no  pos 
sible  reason  why  the  Jews  should  have  hated  Christ,  unless  he 
was  a  Universalist !  They  will  have  it,  too,  that  our  Lord's 


364  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

Universalism  was  shockingly  offensive  to  the  Jews,  and  yet  in 
all  their  controversy  with  him,  and  their  proceedings  against  him, 
it  is  not  so  much  as  once  charged  against  him,  or  even  named  ! 
Let  the  reader  weigh  well  the  following  thoughts : 

1.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  whose  business  it  was  to  estab 
lish  truth  and  overthrow  error,  spent  their  time  upon  earth  among 
believers  in  endless  punishment. 

2.  Deriving  our  knowledge  from  the  Bible,  they  never  ex 
posed  or  rebuked  the  doctrine  in  a  single  instance. 

3.  If  they  were  Universalists,  they  taught  the  doctrine,  and 
it  must  have  been  known  to  the  Jews.     Charges  of  heresy  were 
from  time  to  time  brought  against  them  by  their  Jewish  enemies ; 
but  in  no  single  instance,  either  formally,  incidentally,  or  acci 
dentally,  are  they  charged  with  holding  the  salvation  of  all  men. 

4.  They  used  the  same  language  in  the  presence  of  the  Jews, 
that  the  Jews  did  to  teach  some  of  their  prominent  doctrines  of 
a  future  state  ;  or,  as  Mr.  Balfour  says,  they  spoke  in  accordance 
with  popular  opinions. 

Now  to  what  shall  we  attribute  their  conformity  in  language 
to  Jewish  belief,  and  the  complete  absence  of  any  collision  either 
with  Jews  or  Gentiles  upon  the  doctrines  in  question,  and  their 
failure  to  rebuke  a  future  judgment  and  endless  punishment,  by 
a  single  direct  attack  or  exposure.^  Had  they  not  as  much  love 
for  human  kind,  and  sympathy  for  suffering  humanity,  as  mod 
ern  Universalist  ministers  ?  Were  they  so  blind  that  they  could 
not  see  the  fatal  effects  of  this  great  and  alarming  error  ?  Or 
were  they  wanting  in  courage  to  speak  out  and  warn  the  people  ? 
Who  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  if  Universalists  have  the  truth 
upon  this  subject,  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  sadly  deficient  as 
Universalist  ministers  ?  Or  rather,  who  so  blind  as  not  to  see 
that  Universalism  is  glaringly  false,  that  Christ  and  the  apostles 
taught  no  such  doctrine,  but  were  believers  and  teachers  of  end- 

*  Mr.  Thayer,  speaking  of  endless  punishment,  says,  "  It  was  the  popu 
lar  doctrine  of  the  day  in  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  a  part  of  the  common 
faith  of  Jews  and  Pagans."  Mr.  T.  also  asserts  that  Christ  maintained 
towards  it  a  position  of  "  entire  silence."  Hist,  of  E.  Pun.^  p.  137. 


Sec.   133.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  365 

less  punishment  ?  Do  Universalist  ministers  sometimes  say  elo 
quent  things  concerning  the  example  of  Christ  ?  Suppose  they 
were  to  imitate  it,  would  they  ever  clamor  against  endless  pun 
ishment  ?  Would  they  ever  appeal  to  human  sympathy,  and 
raise  arguments  from  the  attributes  of  God  against  the  doctrine  ? 
And  suppose  they  were  to  use  the  same  language  Jesus  did, 
without  qualification,  would  they  ever  be  taken  for  teachers  of 
Universalism  ?  Truly  this  is  an  age  of  improvement,  for  these 
moderns  are  far  in  advance  of  the  Master  ! 

Think  upon  the  facts  stated  in  this  section,  reader,  and  be  a 
Universalist  if  you  can. 

CXXXIII.  "  The  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  that  inhuman 
dogma,  which  is  common  to  both  Arminians  and  Calvinists,  was 
first  openly  asserted  in  the  Christian  Church  by  Tertullian,  in 
the  third  century.  Until  this  time,  no  declaration  of  any  such 
doctrine  as  endless  misery  by  any  professed  disciple  of  Jesus,  is 
known  to  have  been  made."  Univ.  Almanac,  1844,  p.  36. 

This  appears  to  be  a  common  stock  idea  with  Universalist 
writers,  but  it  is  a  historical  falsehood.  Mr.  H.  Ballon,  2d, 
some  years  since  published  what  he  called  the  "  Ancient  His 
tory  of  Universalism,"  in  which  he  states  concerning  Tertullian, 
as  follows  :  ' '  He  is  thought  to  have  been  the  first  Christian 
writer  who  expressly  asserted  that  the  torments  of  the  damned 
will  be  of  equal  duration  with  the  happiness  of  the  blest."  p.  80. 
Looking  to  Mr.  Ballou  as  an  oracle,  he  has  by.  this  statement 
misled  all  who  have  put  their  trust  in  him.  If  Mr.  B.  had  no 
knowledge  of  such  an  important  work  as  Justin  Martyr's  Apol 
ogy,  he  was  not  qualified  to  write  church  history :  if  he  had  a 
knowledge  of  this  work,  then  there  was  a  wicked  concealment  of 
facts.  Justin  was  one  of  the  most  learned  of  all  the  early 
Fathers,  and  among  his  valuable  works  are  his  Apologies,  or 
what  would  be  called  in  our  times  defences  of  Christian  doctrines 
and  practice,  the  first  of  which  he  addressed  to  the  Roman  Em 
peror  Antoninus  Pius,  about  A.D.  150.  This,  translated  by 


366 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 


Rev.    W.   Reeves,   London,    1709,   is   before  us/from    which 
we  give  the  following  extracts  : 

He  says,  " Moreover  we  say,  that  the  souls  of  the  wicked 
being  reunited  to  the  same  bodies,  shall  be  consigned  over  to 
eternal  torments,  and  not  as  Plato  will  have  it,  to  the  period  of 
a  thousand  years  only;  bat  if  you  will  affirm  this  to  be  incredi 
ble  or  impossible,  there  is  no  help  for  you,  but  you  must  fall 
from  error  to  error,  till  the  day  of  judgment  convinces  you  we 
are  right."  p.  26. 

The  word  eternal  is  evidently  used  here  to  distinguish  between 
the  endless  punishment  believed  by  Christians,  and  the  limited 
one  taught  by  Plato,  the  heathen  philosopher. 

Again  he  says,  "I must  tell  you  likewise,  that  of  all  men  liv 
ing  we  are  the  greatest  promoters  of  peace,  and  bring  you  in 
the  most  powerful  auxiliaries  to  establish  it  in  your  dominions, 
by  teaching  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  worker  of  iniquity ,  any 
covetous  or  insidious  person,  any  one,  either  vicious  or  virtu 
ous,  to  hide  himself f i  om  God  ;  and  that  every  one  is  stepping 
forward  into  everlasting  misery  or  happiness,  according  to  his 
works."  p.  31. 

Observe,  "  every  one  is  stepping  forward  into  everlasting 
misery  or  happiness"  Is  the  word  everlasting  used  in  a  bor 
rowed  sense  here  ?  Then  is  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  limit 
ed.  All  must  sec  that  it  is  used  in  its  proper  sense,  to  signify 
endless  duration. 

Once  more  he  says,  "  When  we  assert  departed  souls  to  be  in 
a  state  of  sensibility ,  and  the  wicked  to  be  in  torments,  but  the 
good  free  from  pain  and  in  a  blissful  condition,  we  assert  no 
more  than  your  poets  and  philosophers."" 

"But  the  ringleader  and  the  prince  of  evil  spirits,  is  by  us 
called  the  serpent,  and  Satan,  and  false  accuser,  as  you  may 
easily  find  from  our  scriptures,  who  together  with  all  his 
hosts  of  angels  and  men  like  himself,  shall  be  thrust  into  fire, 
there  to  be  tormented  world  without  end,  as  our  Christ  hath 
foretold." 


Sec.   133.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF    THE    BIBLE.  367 

" For,  tell  you  I  must,  that  if  you  persist  in  this  course  of 
iniquity,  you  shall  not  escape  the  vengeance  of  God  in  another 
world."  pp.  49,  59,  127. 

Remark,  "  tormented  world  without  end,  as  our  Christ  hath 
foretold."  All  must  see  that  endless  punishment  is  declared  by 
Justin  to  be  a  doctrine  taught  by  Christ  and  believed  by 
Christians;  for  he  is  not  giving  his  own  belief  merely,  but  the 
doctrines  of  the  Christians  generally.  This  apology  was  written 
at  least  fifty  years  before  Tertullian  flourished.*"  A  few  years 
since,  (1846,)  we  published  a  work  containing  an  examination 
of  the  Ancient  History,  by  Ballou,  and  the  Modern  History,  by 
Whittcmore,  in  which  their  errors  upon  this  subject  were  ex 
posed.  The  following  is  a  synopsis  of  our  investigation  down  to 
A.D.  210. 

Barnabas,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  says  of 
Christ,  "after  the  resurrection  he  will  judge  the  world." 
"  The  way  of  darkness  is  crooked,  and  full  of  cursing,  for  it  is 
the  way  of  eternal  death  with  punishment." 

Clemens  Romanus,  a  fellow  laborer  with  St.  Paul,  says,  "  If 
we  disobey  his  (Christ's)  commands,  nothing  shall  deliver  us 
from  eternal  punishment." 

*  Mr.  H.  Ballou,  2d,  in  his  History,  attempts  to  show  that  Justin  believed 
in  the  eventual  annihilation  of  the  wicked.  This  he  does  by  quotations  from 
his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew.  It  is  well  understood  that  his  Dialogue 
was  written  some  years  after  his  First  Apology.  This  Mr.  Ballou  himself 
asserts  as  follows :  "  The  Dialogue  with  Trypho  was  written  certainly  after 
the  First  Apology,  but  perhaps  before  the  Second,  which  is  generally  placed 
at  the  year  162."  Anc.  Hist., p.  56.  Note.  Whatever  may  have  been  Jus 
tin's  views  when  he  wrote  his  Dialogue,  he  has  most  certainly  testified  in 
favor  of  endless  punishment  in  his  First  Apology,  which  was  written  years 
before.  Observe,  it  is  from  the  First  Apology  we  quote;  and  futhermore, 
he  was  not  giving  his  own  opinions  merely,  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  but  the 
doctrines  of  Christians  generally,  at  that  time.  Why  did  not  Mr.  Ballou 
furnish  some  extracts  from  Justin's  First  Apology,  to  show  his  readers  what 
Christians  believed  respecting  endless  punishment,  a  day  of  judgment,  the 
coming  of  Christ,  &c.,  only  fifty  years  from  the  death  of  St.  John,  and 
while  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  John,  was  still  alive  ?  He  probably  was  not 
anxious  for  his  readers  to  know  these  things. 


368  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

Ignatius,  who  was  acquainted  with  St.  Peter  and  Paul,  says 
of  some,  "  They  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God" 
11  shall  depart  into  unquenchable  fire ." 

Poly  carp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  talks  of  Christ's  coming  to 
"judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,"  of  the  "eternal  fire  of  God's 
judgment  reserved  for  the  wicked  in  the  other  world." 

Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  at  the  time  of  Polycarp,  and  had 
doubtless  seen  St.  John,  testifies  abundantly,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  favor  of  future  judgment  and  endless  punishment. 

Hermas,  about  A.D.  150,  or  before,  taught  the  possibility  of 
such  an  apostasy  as  that  there  could  be  no  return,  that  they 
might  depart  from  God  forever." 

Tatian,  (A.D.  170,)  taught  that  there  will  be  a  "resurrec 
tion  and  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  world,"  that  some  will 
"  undergo  death  in  immortality." 

The  Epistle  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna,  (A.D. 
177,)  says  this  of  one  :  that  she,  "  recollecting  the  eternal 
punishment  in  hell,  reproved  her  tormentors." 

Authenagoras,  (A.D.  180,)  teaches  that  "  at  the  day  of 
judgment  rewards  and  punishments  will  be  distributed  to  man 
kind  as  they  have  done  well  or  ill." 

Theophilus,  (A.D.  181,)  advises  one  to  study  the  scriptures, 
that  he  might  shun  eternal  torments." 

Irenceus,  (A.D.  180-190,)  in  giving  the  sentiments  of  all 
Christians,  and  stating  that  they  were  received  from  the  apostles 
and  their  immediate  disciples,  asserts  a  general  resurrection  and 
judgment,  when  the  wicked  shall  be  sent  into  everlasting  fire, 
and  the  righteous  into  life  and  glory  forever ." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  (A.D.  190-196,)  taught  a  future 
hell,  and  that  the  same  means  would  be  used  there  for  the  salva 
tion  of  men  that  are  used  here.  He  was  probably  a  Restora- 
tionist. 

Tertullian,  (A.D.  200-204,)  taught  a  future  judgment  and 
eternal  punishment. " 

Minucius  Felix,  (A.D.  210,)  asserted  the  eternity  of  hell 
torments. 


Sec.   133.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   THE   BIBLE.  369 

The  reader  may  rest  assured,  that  down  to  this  period  (A.D. 
210)  no  Christian  writer  is  known  to  have  asserted  that  there 
will  be  no  future  judgment,  or  no  future  punishment ;  that  our 
conduct  here  cannot  affect  our  future  state  ;  or  that  by  the  resur 
rection  all  are  to  become  holy  and  happy.  Such  sentiments  were 
not  known  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity.  Mr.  Ballou,  in  his 
history,  has  not  attempted  to  show  that  one  of  the  above  named 
notions  are  to  be  found  in  any  Christian  writings  down  to  this 
period;  but  says  of  them,  (Anc.  Hist.,  p.  83,)  "That  there 
was  a  future  state  of  suffering  they  all  agreed" 

We  should  like,  would  space  afford,  to  give  large  extracts 
from  our  former  work  ;  but  a  few  statements  upon  which  the 
reader  can  rely  as  the  result  of  investigation  must  suffice. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  already  named,  and  Origen,  (A.D. 
230,)  taught  Restoration,  obtaining  it  not  from  the  Bible,  but 
from  the  Platonic  philosophy ;  and  Origen  propagated  it  by 
adopting  the  allegorical  method  with  the  scriptures. 

After  Origen,  there  is  no  declaration  on  the  part  of  any  Chris 
tian  writer  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us,  that  Universal 
Restoration  was  his  belief,  or  the  belief  of  ethers,  until  134  years 
from  the  time  Origen  flourished  ;  which  was  A.D.  230,  or  111 
years  after  his  death,  which  took  place  A.D.  250.  The  writ- 
in^s  of  Titus,  bishop  of  Bostra,  A.D.  364,  are  the  first  named 
by  Mr.  Ballou  as  containing  the  doctrine,  after  Origen. 

8.  That  although  we  find  the  doctrine  in  the  writings  of  a  very 
few  men  in  the  fourth  century,  yet  it  never  was  so  extensively  re 
ceived  as  modern  Universalists  would  have  us  believe  ;  but  that 
in  addition  to  the  134  years  from  Origen  to  Titus  of  Bostra,  there 
are  at  least  two  periods,  one  of  50  and  another  of  170  years,  in 
which  Mr.  Ballou  can  produce  no  trace  of  the  doctrine.  Since 
the  Reformation  by  Luther,  some  of  the  Anabaptists,  Unitari 
ans,  and  others,  both  in  Europe  and  in  this  country,  have  held 
the  doctrine  of  Universal  Restoration,  down  to  the  present  time ; 
but  they  have  always  been  few  in  number,  compared  with  Evan 
gelical  Christians. 

'       18 


370  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

As  it  respects  the  sentiments,  that  man's  conduct  here  cannot 
affect  his  future  state,  and  that  all  will  be  rendered  holy  and 
happy  by  the  resurrection,  neither  Mr.  Ballou  nor  Mr.  Whitte- 
more  has  produced  a  single  instance,  showing  that  they  were 
held  by  any  professed  Christian,  from  the  time  of  St.  John  down 
to  the  commencement  of  the  present  century.  It  remained  for 
men  in  the  nineteenth  century  to  produce  these  errors,  and  call 
them  Christian  doctrines. 

Mr.  Whittemore  had  access  to  the  library  of  the  Harvard 
University,  which  contains  as  large,  if  not  the  largest  number  of 
theological  works,  of  any  library  in  the  United  States.  Doubt 
less  Mr.  Ballou  had  the  same  privilege  with  Mr.  Whittemore, 
in  the  preparation  of  his  work.  How  long  Mr.  Ballou's  work 
was  in  preparation,  we  are  not  informed ;  but  Mr.  Whittemore 
has  told  us  that  he  was  upwards  of  five  years  in  collecting  mate 
rials  for  the  Modern  History,  and  that  he  steadily  pursued  his 
purpose,  without  regard  either  to  labor  or  expense.  None  will 
doubt  but  what  these  men  did  the  very  best  they  could  for  Uni- 
versalism,  and  for  modern  views  in  particular.  Now  with  all 
their  years  of  persevering  labor  and  research,  and  with  all  the 
advantages  of  the  extensive  library  in  Cambridge,  how  many 
have  they  fountf  professing  to  be,  and  received  by  the  people  as 
Christian  ministers,  who  have  had  the  boldness  to  openly  avow 
and  advocate  the  doctrine  that  all  men  will  be  saved,  without 
any  suffering  beyond  this  mortal  life  ?  How  many  such  men 
have  they  found  among  the  thousands  of  ministers  named  on  the 
pages  of  the  Harvard  College  library,  from  the  time  of  St.  John 
down  to  the  commencement  of  the  present  century  ?  We  an 
swer,  NOT  ONE,  according  to  their  own  showing !  Samuel 
Richardson  {Mod.  Hist.,  p.  71),  was  so  far  from  boldly  advo 
cating  the  doctrine,  that  he  kept  himself  behind  the  curtain, 
sending  forth  his  work  without  his  name,  if  indeed,  he  was  the 
author  of  the  work  attributed  to  him.  Some  have  thought  he 
was  not. 

Mr.  Whittemore  occupies  four  pages  and  a  half  of  his  Mod- 


SeC.   133.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  371 

ern  History  with  an  account  of  Richard  Coppin,  who  lived 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Well  may  he  make 
much  of  him,  for  it  is  the  first  instance  of  which  we  have  any 
account  in  history,  of  the  public  vindication  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  salvation  of  all  men,  without  any  future  suffering.  He  is 
named  in  none  of  the  church  histories  before  us,  save  Mr.  Whit- 
temore's.  He  appears  to  have  been  a  reckless  fanatic,  very  like 
the  Gome-outers  of  our  day,  and  we  have  no  account  that  he  was 
ever  recognized  as  a  gospel  minister  by  any  body  of  professed 
Christians  whatever. 

The  doctrine,  that  all  men,  irrespective  of  their  character,  or 
agency,  shall  be  saved  without  any  future  sufferings,  was  openly 
avowed  and  advocated  for  the  first  time,  by  a  man  calling  him 
self  a  Christian  minister,  about  thirty-seven  years  ago.  Hosea 
Ballou,  the  elder,  was  that  man.  Strange  that  the  world  should 
have  been  destitute  of  a  true  gospel  minister  so  long ! 

Mr.  Ballou  advanced  his  scheme  of  no  future  punishment 
about  1818.  There  is  one  thing  in  this  man's  history  worthy  of 
remark.  He  states  that  during  a  reformation,  he  became  inter 
ested  in  religion,  and  joined  the  Calvin  Baptist  Church,  of 
which  his  father  was  the  minister,  in  Jan.  1789,  being  then  in 
his  nineteenth  year.  He  says  of  himself:  "  From  that  period  to 
the  present,  I  have  been  a  constant  student  of  the  science  of 
divinity." 

The  fall  before  he  was  twenty-one  he  commenced  preaching 
Universalism.  So  it  appears  that  he  studied  about  twenty-nine 
years,  twenty-seven  of  which  he  was  a  preacher,  before  he 
found  out  that  the  Bible  taught  no  future  suffering  !  !  Surely 
this  is  slow  work  for  a  constant  student  of  divinity,  especially  if 
Universalist  sentiments  are  taught  as  clearly  in  the  Bible  as  Mr. 
Whittemore  would  have  us  believe,  when  he  says,  ( Trumpet, 
No.  646)  :  "  We  are  not  ashamed  to  boast,  that  of  all  the 
opinions  in  Christendom,  ours  grow  the  most  naturally  out  of 
the  sacred  writings  /  /  "  That  Universalists  had  been  very 
anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  future  judgment  and  pun- 


372  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

ishment,  is  evident  from  the  account  given  by  Mr.  Ballou  him 
self,  which  is  as  follows,  (Fut.  Retrib.,  p.  182)  :  "  When  I 
lived  in  Portsmouth,  N.  II.,  some  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  ago, 
(about  1817  or  1818,)  I  was  made  exceeding  glad,  by  discov 
ering  in  my  study  on  Heb.  9  : 27,  28,  what  I  now  believe  to  be 
the  true  application  and  use  of  the  passage.  I  immediately 
communicated  my  thoughts  on  this  text,  and  all  accepted  the  ex 
position  with  approbation  and  delight." 

About  this  time,  Messrs.  Turner  and  Ballou  held  a  .controver 
sy  in  the  Gospel  Visitant,  in  order  to  satisfy  themselves,  in 
which,  says  Mr.  B.,  "  We  agreed  to  do  the  best  we  could  ;  he 
in  favor  of  future  punishment,  and  I  the  contrary." 

"  While  attending  to  this  correspondence,  I  became  entirely 
satisfied  that  the  scriptures  begin  and  end  the  history  of  sin  in 
flesh  and  blood ;  and  that  beyond  this  mortal  existence,  the  Bible 
teaches  no  other  sentient  state  but  that  which  is  called  by  the 
blessed  name  of  life  and  immortality." 

This  account  of  Mr.  Ballou's  early  life  we  find  in  the  Modern 
History  of  Universalism,  pp.  433-438. 

CXXXIV.  The  less  informed  in  the  order  are  led  to  be 
lieve,  by  the  glowing  accounts  in  their  papers,  that  Universalism 
is  about  to  take  the  world  by  its  rapid  increase.  Let  us  look  at 
this  idea  in  the  light  of  facts.  All  things  taken  into  the  account, 
the  progress  of  this  error  has  not  been  very  rapid  in  this  coun 
try.  By  the  statistics  of  the  order  for  1855,  it  appears  that 
they  number  in  the  United  States  six  hundred  and  forty-six  min 
isters.  How  many  members,  we  are  not  informed.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  many  evangelical  denominations,  besides  the 
Methodists,  that  are  increasing  with  great  rapidity,  and  whose 
missionaries  are  belting  the  earth,  let  us  take  a  comparative  view 
of  the  Methodist  and  Universalist  denominations.  Although 
John  Murray  held  scarcely  any  thing  in  common  with  modern 
Universalists,  yet  they  proclaim  him  the  father  of  Universalism 
in  America.  He  landed  upon  our  shores  in  1770.  Methodism 
commenced  in  America  by  the  labors  of  Philip  Embury,  a  local 


Sec.   134.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  373 

preacher  in  New  York,  in  1766,  four  years  only  before  the  ar 
rival  of  Murray. 

From  the  statistics  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for 
the  same  year  with  the  Universalist  statistics  named,  we  find  the 
following :  Members,  755,916  ;  traveling  preachers,  4,474 ;  lo 
cal  prea°chers,  6,061.  The  statistics  for  the  M.  E.  Church 
South  for  the  same  year,  stand  thus :  Members,  542,851 ; 
traveling  preachers,  1,741;  local  preachers,  4,455.  Taking 
these  together,  which,  till  a  few  years  ago,  were  one  denomina 
tion,  we  have  a  membership  of  1,298,767,  and  a  ministry, 
traveling  and  local,  of  16,731. 

We  have  not  only  the  M.  E.  Church  and  the  M.  E.  Church 
South,  but  there  are  the  Protestant  Methodists,  the  Wesleyans, 
and  other  smaller  branches  of  the  Methodist  family  in  the  United 
States,  whose  statistics  are  not  at  hand,  all  holding  the  same 
doctrines  with  the  larger  branches  named.  The  ministry  in  all 
these,  according  to  Dr.  Baird,  (Sec.  CXXIX,)  number  22,198. 
In  the  absence  of  a  report  of  numbers  we  can  only  judge  of  the 
progress  of  Universalism  by  its  ministry.  By  their  own  show 
ing,  there  are  now  (1855)  646  in  their  ministry  in  the  United 
States,  of  course  not  including  the  British  Provinces.  Take 
646  from  22,198  and  it  will  be  seen  that  Methodism  numbers 
twenty-one  thousand  Jive  hundred  and  fifty-tivo  more  in  its 
ministry  than  all  the  Universalist  ministry  in  our  land  !  By 
statistics,  as  reported  in  the  Universalist  almanacs,  we  see  that 
in  1844  there  were  on  the  continent,  including  the  United 
States,  Canadas,  New  Brunswick,  and  Nova  Scotia,  646  minis 
ters,  the  same  number  they  now  report  for  the  United  States 
alone.  In  1855,  on  the  same  territory,  there  are  651,  being  an 
increase  of  jive  in  the  Universalist  ministry  during  eleven 
years ! 

We  have  not  statistics  at  hand  to  show  the  increase  of  the 
Methodist  ministry ;  but  it  is  some  thousands  in  the  eleven 
years,  for  we  find  its  increase  in  the  two  leading  bodies  the  last 
year  to  be  783.  That  is,  the  increase  of  the  ministry  in  the  M. 
E.  Church  and  the  M.  E.  Church  South  the  past  year,  is  one 


374  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

hundred  and  thirty-two  more  than  all  the  Universalist  ministry 
in  North  America  !  Now,  if  the  small  increase  of  five  minis 
ters  in  eleven  years  indicates,  as  it  doubtless  does,  the  general 
state  of  the  cause,  we  cannot  conclude  that  Universalism  is  in  a 
very  prosperous  condition. 

Figures  will  show  that  on  a  comparative  view  the  numbers  are 
as  one  to  thirty-four  and  a  half.  That  is,  for  every  Universalist 
minister  there  are  thirty-four  Methodist  ministers,  with  fractions 
in  our  favor,  in  the  United  States.  We  are  also  without  data 
to  furnish  the  increase  of  the  ministry  in  all  the  evangelical 
orders  during  the  eleven  years  named ;  but  have  their  present 
numbers  (Sec.  CXXIX)  amounting  to  forty  thousand,  which 
gives  for  every  Universalist  minister,  at  least  sixty-one  evangel 
ical  ministers  in  the  United  States.  Universalism  has  done 
great  mischief  in  the  world,  and  its  progress  has  been  consider 
able  when  contemplated  by  itself;  yet  when  compared  with  the 
great  increase  of  our  population,  and  the  progress  of  truth,  it 
has  been  but  little. 

If  Universalism  did  spread  as  rapidly  as  many  of  its  votaries 
are  induced  to  believe,  it  would  not  of  itself  be  evidence  of  its 
truthfulness.  Methodism  has  far  outstripped  it  in  numbers; 
but  we  should  never  think  of  contending  that  Methodism  must 
be  true  solely  on  account  of  its  rapid  increase.  If  a  doctrine 
spreads  rapidly,  and  the  reception  of  it  has  a  transforming  influ 
ence,  changing  the  character  and  habits  of  wicked  men  into  those 
of  virtue  and  piety,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  it  is  of  God, 
that  it  is  true.  But,  where  shall  we  look  for  such  results  from 
the  spread  of  Universalism  ?  We  ask,  where  ? 

For  the  state  of  the  cause  in  Maine,  see  Sec.  CXXII. 

CXXXY.  Christians,  because  they  cannot  fellowship  Uni- 
versalists,  are  often  charged  with  bigotry.  We  deny  the  charge 
and  submit  the  following  : 

o 

If  evangelical  Christians  hold  the  fundamental  truths  of  the 
Bible,  then  the  doctrines  which  stand  directly  opposed  to  these 
must  be  infidel  in  their  character.  ,None,  we  think,  will  dispute 


SeC.   135.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  375 

this.  That  they  do  hold  the  truths  of  the  Bible  they  firmly  be 
lieve.  The  question  we  now  propose,  is  this  :  Is  the  Univer- 
salist  system  antagonistical  to  the  whole  system  of  evangelical 
Christianity  ?  Leading  men  in  the  order  shall  answer  this.  Mr. 
Williamson  says  : 

"  I  have  no  disposition  to  conceal  the  fact,  that  there  is  a  wide 
and  irreconcilable  difference  between  us  and  our  opposers  ;  nor 
can  it  be  denied,  that  if  we  are  right  they  are  wrong  ;  not  mere 
ly  in  some  points,  but  radically,  and  I  had  almost  said  totally 
wrong.     This  is  a  truth  with  which  we  are  well  acquainted  ;  and 
that  man  pursues  a  mistaken  policy,  nay,  even  a  wicked  course 
of  hypocrisy,  who  attempts  to   conceal  this  fact.     There  is  no 
manner  of  use  in   endeavoring  to  make  it  appear,  that  there  is 
but  a  shade  of  difference,  between  us  and  other  denominations  ; 
for  there  is  a  difference,  high  as  heaven,  wide  as  the  earth  ; 
a  difference  as  hopelessly  and  utterly  irreconcilable,  as  light  and 
darkness ;  and  there  is  no  disguising  the  obvious  truth,  that  if 
one  system  is  true  the  other  is  false,  desperately  and  hopelessly 
false,  I  had  almost  said,  in  its  whole  length  and  breadth."    Exp. 
andDef.of  U.,  p.  215. 

Such  is  the  strong  language  of  a  distinguished  Universahs 
minister,  relative  to  the  perfect  opposition  of  the  two  systems. 
Mr.  Grrosh,  another  great  man  in  the  order,  says  :  "  Our  faith, 
as  of  old,  is  opposed  in  every  material  part,  that  can  effect  the 
honor  of  God  and  the  happiness  of  man,  to  the  faith  of  the  re 
ligious  world."  Mag.  and  Advocate,  p.  349. 

°  Abundance  of  similar  testimonies  are  before  us  in  their  peri 
odicals.  We  select  the  following  from  other  leading  men.  In 
the  Trumpet  for  Dec.  12,  1835,  is  an  article  on  the  "  Tendency 
of  Universalism,"  taken  from  the  Gospel  Banner,  in  which  the 
following  is  found  : 

"  The  tendency  of  Universalism  is,  obviously,  opposite  to  that 
of  Partialism.     They   are    clearly  and    plainly  opposite    senti 
ments  ;  and,  of  course,  must  be  opposite  in  their  tendency  and 
influence.     If  one  of  them  is  true,  and  productive  of  beneficial 
o  quences,  the  other  is  not ;  and  vice  versa.     Both  of  them 


376  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

cannot  be  sustained  by  the  word  of  God,  if  that  word  is  itself 
worthy  of  credence  ;  for  '  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot 
stand.'  If,  therefore,  the  word  of  God  is  divided,  and  presents 
opposite  and  conflicting  sentiments,  it  cannot  sustain  the  test  of 
critical  examination,  and  should  at  once  be  abandoned." 

This  is  doubtless  from  Mr.  Drew,  then  editor  of  the  Banner,  as 
no  correspondent  is  named. 

^  Again  :  In  the  Banner  of  Nov.  2,  1844,  is  a  sermon  by  J. 
Boyden,  delivered  before  the  United  States  General  Convention 
of  Universalists,  in  Baltimore,  and  in  speaking  of  the  opposino- 
sentiments  with  which  Universalism  had  contended,  he  says! 
"  How  difficult  then  to  establish  a  doctrine  so  diametrically 
opposed  to  all  the  leading  and  long  cherished  opinions  of  the 


The  Trumpet  is  before  us  for  August  18,  1838,  in  which  Mr. 
Whittemore  quotes  the  following  from  Mr.  Royce,  who,  in  con 
trasting  Universalist  with  Orthodox  views,  says  : 

"Universalism  has  'a  different  God,  a  different  Christ,  a 
different  spirit,  a  different  sinner,  a  different  sin,  a  different 
atonement,  a  different  grace,  a  different  pardon,  a  different  salva 
tion,  a  different  resurrection,  a  different  judgment,  a  different 
punishment,  a  different  hell,  and  a  different  heaven  — in  fine,  a 
difference  with  respect  to  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  Chris 
tianity.'  ' 

After  quoting  the  above,  Mr.  Whittemore  uses  the  following 
very  emphatic  language : 

; '  To  this  we  give  our  assent.  Mr.  Royce  is  right.  We  con 
firm  his  words,  that  Partialism  is,  in  every  sense,  a  very  differ 
ent  doctrine  from  Universalism.  He  cannot  represent  the  dif 
ference  to  be  too  great." 

Here  it  is  contended,  by  these  prominent  men  in  the  order, 
that  their  religious  belief  is  in  all  respects  entirely  opposite  to 
that  of  Christians  in  general ;  that  the  difference  is  «<  as  high  as 
heaven,  wide  as  the  earth,  and  as  hopelessly  irreconcilable  as 
light  and  darkness ;  that  there  is  no  disguising  the  obvious 


SeC.   135.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  377 

truth,  that  if  one  system  is  true  the  other  is  false,  desperately 
and  hopelessly  false  ;  that.  Universalism  "  is  opposed  in  every 
material  part  to  the  faith  of  the  religious  world  ;  "  that  it  is 
"  diametrically  opposed  to  all  the  leading  and  long  cherished 
opinions  of  the  age  ;  "  and  of  the  two  systems  it  is  said  :  "  If 
one  of  them  is  true  and  productive  of  beneficial  consequences, 
the  other  is  not ;  and  vice  versa,'''  and  we  "  cannot  represent 
the  difference  to  be  too  great." 

The  unqualified  testimony  here  given,  that  Universalism 
is  diametrically  opposed  to  evangelical  Christianity  in  every 
essential  point,  is  correct ;  and  we  call  the  special  atten 
tion  of  those  professors  of  religion,  who  have  been  somewhat 
deceived  by  their  goodly  words  and  affected  piety,  as  occasion 
may  require,  and  are  beginning  to  have  a  morbid  sympathy  for 
the  system,  to  the  statements  of  these  leading  advocates.  With 
these  facts  before  them,  what  view  can  enlightened  Christians  take 
of  the  system  ?  They  must  either  acknowledge  their  own  sys 
tem  infidel  in  all  its  essential  features,  or  else  they  must  look 
upon  Universalism  as  a  system  of  infidelity,  having  assumed 
the  Christian  name  to  give  it  more  .force.  This  we  conceive  to 
be  its  true  character. 

By  its  own  showing,  the  two  systems  are  complete  antipodes, 
and  Mr.  Drew,  just  quoted,  says:  "If  one  is  true,  and  pro 
ductive  of  beneficial  consequences,  the  other  is  not ;  and  vice 
versa." 

Professing,  as  they  do,  to  be  a  complete  "opposition  con 
cern"  what  shall  we  think  of  their  oft  repeated  efforts  to  brand 
us  with  the  character  of  bigots,  because  we  cannot  fellowship 
them  as  Christians  ?  Do  they  really  think  that  it  would  be  an 
act  of  Christian  liberality  for  others  to  fraternize  with  them,  and 
thus  endorse  their  religious  character  and  sentiments  ?  Might  we 
not  inquire,  "  What  concord  hath  Christ  with  Belial  ?  or  what 
part  hath  he  that  believeth  with  an  Infidel?  "  2  Cor.  6  : 15. 

Must  we  aid  the  incendiary  in  kindly  the  flames  to  burn  the 
house  over  our  own  heads  in  order  to  be  liberal  ?     And  are  we 
18* 


878  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

to  be  accounted  bigots  because  we  cannot  unite  with  this  class  of 
people  in  a  religious  capacity  ?  In  a  religious  capacity,  we  say, 
for  we  would  live  on  terms  of  good  neighborhood  with  them,  as 
men  and  citizens.  We  would  unite  with  them,  the  same  as  we 
would  with  other  irreligious  men,  to  rescue  our  fellow  beings 
from  temporal  evils. 

We  would  as  readily  seize  hold  with  a  Universalist  minister  to 
pull  a  man  from  the  water  or  fire  as  any  one  else.  But  we  can 
do  nothing  knowingly  to  endorse  his  sentiments,  or  to  recognize 
him  as  a  gospel  minister.  We  cannot  look  upon  him  as  one  of 
Christ's  ministers,  or  his  gospel  as  Christ's  gospel.  We  would 
love  Universalists  as  those  for  whom  the  Saviour  died,  and  do 
them  good.  We  would  deprive  them  of  none  of  their  rights. 
Yea,  more,  if  their  rights  were  in  danger,  we  would  aid  them  in 
securing  them. 

We,  too,  have  rights.  We  claim  the  right  of  exemption  from 
the  charge  of  bigotry,  because  we  cannot  unite  with  those  whose 
sole  business  is  to  destroy  that  which  we  consider  more  valu 
able  than  life  itself.  It  is  most  conscientiously  believed,  that  no 
enlightened  Christian  can  unite  with  Universalists  in  a  religious 
capacity,  any  more  than  he  can  with  the  disciples  of  Tom  Paine. 
Is  this  bigotry  ?  Then  was  the  loving  and  beloved  John  a 
bigot.  He  says  :  "  If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not 
this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  unto  your  house,  neither  bid  him 
God  speed.  For  he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker  of 
his  evil  deeds."  2  John  10,  11. 

Surely  the  errors  to  which  John  refers  could  not  have  been 
more  inimical  to  the  gospel  of  Christ  than  are  Universalist  doc 
trines.  It  is  only  infidel  liberality  that  makes  God's  truth  of  so 
little  value,  and  glaring  and  poisonous  error  so  harmless,  that  all 
who  choose  to  call  themselves  Christians  must  be  so  considered, 
whatever  the  doctrines  they  may  hold  and  teach.  We  believe 
no  man  can  understandingly  embrace  Universalism,  and  be  a 
Christian,  any  more  than  a  man  can  understandingly  embrace 
Mormonism,  and  still  remain  a  Christian. 


Sec.   135.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    TUB    BILLE. 


379 


There  may  be  some  deluded  persons  who  have  been  drawn 
among  them  unwittingly,  who  retain,  for  a  while  at  least,  some 
thing  of  their  Christian  character ;  but,  as  a  general  thing,  they 
soon  become  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  order,  which  we  con 
ceive  to  be  nothing  less  than  a  war  with  Jehovah's  attributes 
and  penalties.  But  is  it  right  to  class  all  in  the  denomination 
with  Infidels  ?  This  we  have  not  done.  Many  are  with  them 
who  are  not  yet,  neither  do  they  mean  to  be  Infidels,  for  they 
are  not  enlightened  to  see  the  true  character  of  the  system.  But 
it  would  be  a  severe  reflection  upon  the  intellectual  character  of 
its  leading  advocates,  were  we  to  say  the  same  of  them ;  and  we 
think  no  Christian  man  capable  of  tracing  all  their  windings, 
and  detecting  their  perversions  of  scripture,  can  sit  down  to  their 
books  without  becoming  established  in  the  opinion,  that  their 
leadino-  writers  have  no  manner  of  faith  in  the  Bible  as  a  divine 
revelation,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term,  but  are  Infidels  at 
heart,  and  have  brought  forth  this  system  and  baptized  it  with  a 
Christian  name,  the  more  successfully  to  oppose  vital  godliness, 
and  to  make  money  by  preaching  and  writing  it. 

tfhat  they  use  the  Bible  and  profess  a  regard  for  the  Christian 
faith,  is  well  known.  How  they  use  the  Bible  has  been  shown 
in  these  pages ;  and  as  to  the  profession,  that  changes  nothing. 
Theodore  Parker,  and  his  compeers  in  Infidelity,  profess  a  high 
regard  for  pure  Christianity. 

°Chubb,  a  noted  Infidel,  entitled  one  of  his  Infidel  tracts, 
"  The  True  Gospel  Asserted '."  Universalists  preach  and  write 
some  smart  things  against  Infidelity,  while  its  chief  elements  are 
found  in  their  own  system.  (Sec.  CXVIII.)  Informing  this 
estimate  we  look  more  particularly  at  what  is  denied  concerning 
God  the  Father,  Christ  the  Son,  his  nature  and  offices,  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  his  work,  and  the  condition  and  wants  of  man.  We 
look  at  the  treatment  the  Bible  receives,  and  the  baneful  influ 
ence  of  the  doctrines  inculcated,  (Sec.  CXXXVII,)  in  pro 
ducing  irreligion,  general  skepticism,  and  nothingarianism. 
Now  what  is  the  obvious  duty  of  Christians  in  respect  to  this 


380 


UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 


system  of  error  ?  Let  its  votaries  be  treated  with  the  same 
kindness  that  all  other  unconverted  men  are  entitled  to,  but  do 
nothing  which  shall  seem  to  bid  them  God  speed  in  their  work. 
Build  no  meeting  houses  with  them,  neither  open  any  for  them 
to  disseminate  their  doctrine.  Yield  to  no  expediency  in  this 
matter  ;  it  will  always  prove  bad  in  the  end.  Some  Christians, 
to  please  their  friends,  have  occasionally  accompanied  them  to 
Universalist  meetings.  The  influence  of  this  goes  to  confirm 
them  in  their  errors. 

If  our  friends  have  been  deluded  by  the  system,  it  is  a 
weighty  reason  why  we  should  give  no  countenance  to  it  what 
ever.  Let  direction  be  sought  of  God,  in  the  closet,  and  a 
Christian  will  seldom  be  found  under  the  poisonous  droppings  of 
a  Universalist  sanctuary.  A  conscientious  and  strict  disfellow- 
ship  is  demanded  by  the  love  we  should  bear  for  Univcrsalists 
themselves,  for  a  world  lying  in  wickedness,  and  for  "  the 
church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 

Napoleon's  policy  was  to  make  those  upon  whom  he  made  his 
aggressions  pay  the  expenses  of  his  wars.  Universalists  pursue 
a  similar  course  of  policy  in  getting  up  fairs,  levees,  and  Sabbath 
School  exhibitions,  for  which  a  fee  of  admittance  is  required,  the 
object  of  which  is  to  sustain  Universalism.  Some  Christians  are 
induced  to  attend,  not  fully  realizing  what  they  are  doing,  and 
thus  they  aid  the  enemy  in  his  warfare  against  the  armies  of 
the  living  God.  Christians,  beware  how  you  cast  you  influence 
and  pay  your  money  ! 

CXXXVI.  Twenty-four  years  ago,  Mr.  Whittemore,  after 
laboring  to  show  that  it  availed  nothing  against  modern  Univer 
salism  for  the  opponents  to  refute  the  opinions  of  Origen,  Relly, 
and  Winchester,  said,  (Trumpet,  April  1,  1831)  ^"Univer 
salists  now  know  of  no  condition  for  man  beyond  the  grave,  but 
that  in  which  he  is  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven." 

Here  no  future  punishment  is  declared  to  be  a  denominational 
sentiment.  He  has  shown,  too,  in  his  Modern  History  of  Uni- 


SeC.  136.]  UNIVEESALISM   NOT    OP   THE   BIBLE. 


381 


versalism,  pp.  439-441,  that  there  were  but  few,  comparative 
ly,  as  early  as  1829,  among  their  preachers  or  people  who  be 
lieved  in  any  future  punishment  whatever.  But  some  have  en 
tertained  the  opinion  that  they  are  about  to  abandon  the  no  fu 
ture  punishment  scheme,  and  go  back  to  Restorationism.  What 
evidence  is  there  of  this  ?  We  are  aware  that  there  has  been  a 
little  controversy  through  their  papers  concerning  future  punish 
ment,  pro  and  con.  This,  we  conclude,  is  a  kind  of  sham  fight, 
the  design  of  which  is  well  understood  by  their  leaders.  We 
have  known  a  few  of  their  preachers,  who  were  said  to  be  be 
lievers  in  future  punishment,  but  never  heard  of  their  preaching 
it.  To  make  such  a  presentation  occasionally  may  answer  their 
proselyting  ends,  especially  when  it  is  desirable  to  bring  about  a 
marriage  between  the  Universalist  and  Unitarian  denominations 
in  certain  localities. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  the  instruction  imparted  concern 
ing  the  future  is  this  :  "  Just  what  you  desire  the  future  state  to 
be  it  shall  be."  Will  their  people  desire  punishment  after 
death  ?  Not  they.  If  there  is  punishment  after  death,  then  in 
preaching  it  there  must  be  appeals  to  their  fears  concerning  it. 
Would  their  ministers  be  allowed  to  do  this  ?  We  doubt  if  there 
is  a  Universalist  congregation  in  our  land  that  will  tolerate  the 
enforcement  of  future  punishment  by  their  minister.  He  may 
be  permitted  to  hold  it  as  a  private  opinion,  but  he  must  not 
preach  it.  After  all,  we  conclude  that  this  doctrine  hangs 
rather  loosely  about  those  ministers  in  the  order,  who  assert  a  be 
lief  in  it.  They  fraternize  with  those  who  deny  it,  and  appear 
perfectly  at  home  with  them. 

To  a  mind  unenlightened  upon  the  subject,  the  doctrine  of 
limited  future  punishment  does  not  at  first  present  so  glaring  an 
absurdity  as  no  future  punishment ;  and  it  is  a  fact  that  the 
most  of  those  who  apostatize  from  the  truth,  do  not  embrace  the 
no  future  punishment  scheme,  at  first,  but  believe  in  future  pun 
ishment  and  restoration.  To  help  forward  this  class,  these 
preachers  doubtless  find  it  convenient  to  have  a  set  of  reserve 


382 


UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 


doctrines,  the  public  advocacy  of  which  would  not  be  tolerated 
by  full  grown  Universalists. 

Their  first  great  labor  is  to  prevail  upon  men  to  abandon  end 
less  punishment ;  this  gained,  they  then,  like  the  leaders  of  the 
French  Atheism,  initiate  them  into  other  degrees,  and  soon  they 
reach  the  sublime  climax  of  modern  Universalism,  namely :  Re 
ligion  is  designed  only  for  this  world  ;  so  far  as  the  future  is 
concerned,  the  saint  and  the  sinner  stand  on  a  perfect  level ; 
all  shall  be  made  holy  and  happy  by  the  resurrection. 

Some  of  the  order,  when  hard  pressed  with  the  absurdity  of 
no  future  punishment,  have  stated  that  the  number  of  believers 
in  future  retribution  is  numerous  in  the  denomination.  If  this 
is  so,  why  are  we  not  informed  in  what  part  of  the  Bible  the 
doctrine  is  taught  ?  Why  is  it  not  preached  from  their  pulpits  ? 
Why  is  it  not  taught  in  their  books  ?  We  have  in  possession  a 
large  number  of  books,  sermons  and  tracts,  from  their  ablest 
ministers,  and  in  them  all  there  is  not  a  single  effort  to 
teach  future  rewards  and  punishments  ;  but  on  the  other  hand 
the  doctrine  is  uniformly  combatted  by  these  authors,  and  the 
future-state  reference  of  those  texts,  which  Restorationists  for 
merly  employed  to  teach  future  punishment,  is  denied.  We 
called  a  short  time  since  at  the  Universalist  book  store  in  Bos 
ton,  and  inquired  if  there  was  a  book  on  sale  in  which  future 
punishment  is  taught,  or  if  any  one  in  the  denomination  had 
issued  such  a  book.  The  man  in  attendance  said  he  knew  of  no 
such  book  issued  among  them.  Their  approved  catechisms,  used 
in  their  Sabbath  Schools,  do  not  teach  it.  They  are  before  us 
by  Balch,  Bacon,  Skinner,  Adams,  and  S.  E.  Smith,  not  one  of 
which  even  intimate  that  there  is  anything  whatever  to  be 
dreaded  by  the  sinner  in  the  future  world  ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
the  last  named  author  combats  the  doctrine.  Now  if  the  belief 
of  future  punishment  is  common  in  the  order,  why  is  it  not 
found  in  their  catechisms,  designed  to  indoctrinate  their  chil 
dren  ?  And  why  from  their  pulpits  do  they  not  point  out  the 
scriptures  and  enforce  the  doctrine  by  them  ?  Probably  those 


Sec.   137.]  TJNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  383 

who  profess  to  believe  it,  hold  it  as  a  mere  philosophical  specu 
lation,  and  are  not  over-anxious  that  it  should  have  any  practical 
effect,  save  to  cover  up  one  of  the  absurd  features  of  Universal- 
ism,  or  to  gain  the  favor  of  Unitarians. 

A  few  years  since,  Mr.  Drew,  {Banner,  Nov.  18,  1844,) 
speaking  of  some  of  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  who  believed 
future  punishment,  says  of  them  :  "  Their  desire  for  the  peace 
of  the  order  has  caused  them  to  be  more  careful  than  some 
of  different  views  have  been,  as  to  committing  the  order  to  their 
opinions." 

That  is,  they  have,  very  generally,  said  nothing  about  a  fu 
ture  hell,  to  which  they  believed  their  fellow  men  exposed  ;  but 
have  been  in  closest  union  with,  and  have  suffered  their  fellow 
travelers  to  eternity  to  be  deceived  by  those  who  were  teaching 
no  future  punishment,  and  that  for  the  sake  of  "  the  peace  of 
the  order !  "  What  shall  we  think  of  the  honesty  and 
benevolence  of  such  teachers  as  fail  to  apprise  men  of  such 
danger. 

CXXXYII.  All  that  modern  Uhiversalism  professes  to  do 
for  man  is  confined  to  this  world.  Its  doctrines  are  productive 
of  the  purest  morality.  This  is  the  profession.  Does  it  accom 
plish  what  it  professes  ?  Pages  might  be  filled  with  the  testi 
mony  of  such  men  as  Charles  Hudson,  Adin  Ballou,  Dean, 
Todd,  Whittaker,  Smith,  Bailey,  Dow,  Turner,  and  others,  who 
have  left  the  order  and  have  given  us  the  result  of  their  obser 
vations  concerning  the  baneful  influence  of  the  system,  as  put 
forth  by  Ballou  and  Whittemore. 

Those  ministers,  who  left  them  in  1831,  calling  themselves 
Restorationists,  have  presented  the  deleterious  influence  of  mod 
ern  Universalism  from  what  they  themselves  had  witnessed,  in 
as  deep  colors  as  any  anti-Universalist  ever  did.  But  for  our 
present  purpose  we  prefer  to  give  statements  from  the  pens  of 
those  who  are  now  in  fellowship  with  the  order.  Twenty  years 
ao-o  the  editor  of  the  Trumpet,  in  furnishing  an  account  of  his 


384 


UNI  VERBALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 


visit  to  the  Maine   Convention  of  Universalists,  and  of  the  re 
solves  reported  and  passed  by  that  body,  says  : 

"  They  declare  the  cause  of  Universalism  worthy  the  sup 
port  of  men  of  piety  and  religious  feelings  •  and  recommend 
to  the  societies  in  Maine,  that  no  man  blown  to  be  addicted  to 
the  habits  of  drunkenness,  or  gambling,  or  profane  swearing, 
or  who  is  an  unbeliever  of  Christianity,  should  he  appointed 
to  office  in  the  societies"  Trumpet,  July  11,  1835. 

From  this  we  readily  learn  what  class  of  men  rallied  for  the 
support  of  Universalism  at  that  time.  Observe  :  There  is 
nothing  said  in  the  resolution  about  private  members,  only 
the  officers  !  This  was  passed  thirty-six  years  after  the  organ 
ization  of  the  Maine  Convention.  What  shall  we  think  of  the 
sin-killing  power  of  Universalism,  when,  at  so  late  a  period 
in  its  existence,  it  was  found  necessary  to  pass  such  a  resolu 
tion? 

A  few  years  later,  and  we  find  Mr.  W.  C.  George,  a  minister 
of  the  faith,  writing  as  follows  : 

'•'  There  is,  I  fear,  too  much  of  disrelish  among  Universalists 
to  practical  preaching.  Too  many  who  call  themselves  Univer 
salists,  are  glad  to  have  our  ministers  hew  our  opponents  in 
pieces,  very  much  as  Samuel  did  Agag,  and  to  illustrate  and  de 
fend  the  great  doctrine  of  human  salvation  ;  but  when  he  ex 
horts  them  to  abandon  bad  habits,  and  to  live  good  lives when 

he  preaches  repentance  and  reformation,  why  that  is  very  good, 
but  then  the  orthodox  are  alwavs  harping  about  religion  and 
morality  ;  and  we  want  the  people  to  hear  our  doctrines."  Ban 
ner,  March  27,  1841. 

If  it  is  a  self-evident  fact,  that  those  who  love  the  practice  of 
Christian  morality  do  take  pleasure  in  hearing  it  taught  from  the 
pulpit,  what  is  the  conclusion  we  are  to  draw  from  the  state 
ment  of  Mr.  George  ? 

A  few  years  after  this,  Mr.  J.  George,  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  said  by  Mr.  Drew  to  be  one  of  their  best  ministers,  writes 
as  follows : 


Sec.   137.]          UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE. 

"  I  will  notice  a  few  particulars  in  the  character  of  our  de 
nomination,  which,  for  myself,  in  the  light  of  the  gospel,  I  can 
neither  approve  or  countenance.''  The  first  thing  Mr.  G.  names 
is,  "A  want  of  attention  to  the  vital  claims  of  religion  upon 
the  heart.  It  is  a  shameful  truth,  that  this  important  demand  of 
the  gospel  is  almost  entirely  neglected  in  the  denomination. 
Vital  piety,  a  new  heart,  and  a  prayerful  and  holy  life,  as  the 
first  obligation  of  the  New  Testament,  has  but  few  advocates  in 
the  order." 

Again,  Mr.  G.  says  :  "  There  is  among  us  a  contentious, 
wrangling,  controversial  spirit,  which  is  certainly  uncalled  for. 
There  are  multitudes  professing  a  faith  in  Universalism,  who 
seem  to  think  that  they  have  performed  their  duty  religiously  by 
a  boisterous  defence  of  their  faith  in  controversy,  and  by  giving 
their  orthodox  neighbors  a  severe  and  unmerciful  castigation. 
There  is  a  notorious  lack  of  public  spirit  in  the  denomination. 
The  missionary  cause,  and  that  of  education  is  wofully  disre 
garded  and  neglected,  and  the  true  catholic  spirit  is  almost  ex 
tinct  among  us.  There  is  an  unwillingness  to  make  any  sacri 
fice  for  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  improvement  of  others,  and 
this  is  to  be  attributed  to  a  want  of  vitality,  of  deep  religious 
feeling  and  devotional  spirit  among  us." 

These  extracts  are  taken  from  a  June  number  of  the  Gospel 
Banner  of  1849.  This  is  not  from  an  opponent,  but  a  volunta 
ry  confession  of  a  friend  and  minister  of  the  order,  who  would 
be  interested  to  represent  the  matter  in  the  most  favorable  light. 
Yet  such  is  the  corruption  and  irreligion  in  the  denomination, 
that  he  is  obliged  to  speak  out  most  truthfully.  Mr.  G.  should 
become  sensible  of  one  more  fact,  namely  :  That  these  evil  fruits 
are  legitimate  ;  that  Universalism  is  a  bad  tree,  and  can  never 
bear  good  fruit. 

We  see  in  the  light  of  these  facts  why  it  is  that  Universalist 
papers  have  contained  so  much  scurrility  against  Christian  denom 
inations,  and  why  the  editors  of  the  order  have  seized  with  so 
much  avidity  upon  the  real  or  supposed  defections  in  the  minis- 


386  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

try  and  membership  of  Christian  churches,  spreading  them 
before  the  world  to  meet  the  cravings  of  their  patrons.  It  is  to 
pull  others  down  on  a  level  with  themselves,  in  the  public  mind, 
that  they  do  this.  It  answers  as  an  apology  for  their  own  sins. 

The  vastly  superior  numbers  in  all  the  Christian  denomina 
tions  over  their  own,  both  in  the  ministry  and  membership,  af 
ford  them  great  advantage  in  collecting  this  offal.  Facts  could 
be  given,  were  it  necessary,  concerning  not  a  few  of  their  minis 
ters,  which,  on  a  relative  view,  would  place  the  order  in  no  very 
enviable  light. 

A  few  figures  will  show  that,  on  a  comparative  view  of  num 
bers,  (Sec.  CXXXIV,)  for  every  individual  case  of  immorality 
among  them,  there  should  be  at  least  thirty-four  among  the 
Methodists  to  render  it  equal,  and  sixty-one  in  the  ministry  of 
the  evangelical  churches  of  the  country.  (Sec.  CXXIX.) 
The  same  view  may  be  taken  of  the  respective  memberships, 
only  there  is  a  far  greater  disparity  in  numbers  here  than  in  the 
ministry.  A  few  years  ago,  some  of  the  leaders  in  the  order 
became  quite  zealous  in  church-forming,  but  the  effort  was  looked 
upon  with  but  little  favor  by  the  most  of  their  people,  and  some 
of  their  ministers ;  for  since  all  men  are  the  dear  children  of 
God,  why  should  such  a  division  line  be  drawn  between  children 
of  the  same  family  ?  There  was  evidently  too  much  Partialism 
in  the  idea  for  well  instructed  Universalists,  and  the  thing  has 
succeeded  so  poorly  that  they  do  not  attempt  to  furnish  the  num 
ber  of  church  members  in  their  statistics. 

A  vast  majority  of  the  most  zealous  among  them  assume  no 
church  rcsposibilities ;  and  when  persons  of  this  class  commit 
deeds  of  wickedness,  why  then,  forsooth,  they  were  never  Uni 
versalists  !  Christians,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  New  Tes 
tament,  form  churches,  extend  their  labors  to  the  low  and  vi 
cious,  as  well  as  the  moral,  seek  their  conversion  to  God,  and 
when  conversion  is  professed,  gather  them  into  churches,  and 
strive  to  throw  around  them  those  influences  which  have  a  ten 
dency  to  keep  them  in  the  narrow  way  which  leads  to  heaven. 


Sec.   137.]          UN1VERSALISM   NOT    OP    THE   BIBLE. 


387 


Thousands  are  thus  saved  to  themselves,  to  their  friends,  and  to 
the  world,  for  usefulness.  Among  those  thus  gathered  may  be 
some  hypocrites,  perhaps  Universalists  at  heart,  (Sec.  CXX'VI,) 
or  some  may  fall  away  and  commit  wicked  deeds,  and  the 
churches  be  obliged  to  expel  them,  and  what  then  ?  Why,  such 
cases  are  taken  up  and  published  in  Universalist  papers  as  the 
fruit  of  Partialism  ! 

Taking  into  the  account  their  paucity  of  numbers,  and  the 
very  few  who  assume  church  responsibilities,  it  will  be  seen  that 
theirs  is  a  mere  Indian  warfare  with  the  armies  of  the  living 
God.  What  a  fine  opportunity  it  would  afford  them  to  build  up 
their  people,  not  in  holiness,  but  in  hatred  to  others,  if  for  every 
immoral  minister  among  them,  sixty-one  such  were  found  in 
other  denominations.  Others,  when  a  defection  occurs,  bring  the 
offender  to  trial  and  suspend  or  expel,  if  found  guilty,  and  by  this 
it  becomes  more  extensively  known,  and  soon  finds  its  way  into 
Universalist  and  Infidel  papers.  But  Universalists  are  so  char 
itable  that  some  of  their  ministers,  known  to  be  guilty  of  im 
moral  acts,  continue  to  preach  as  though  nothing  had  happened. 
To  such  an  extent  has  this  been  carried,  that  even  Mr.  Drew,  a 
few  years  ago,  was  compelled  to  utter  his  complaint  as  follows  : 

"  We  have  seen  too  much  of  this  false  mercy  —  this  real  in 
justice  —  among  Universalists.  They  have  not  dared  to  deal 
with  their  dishonest  men,  lest  the  public  should  find  out  that 
they  had  bad  men  amongst  them  !  "  Banner,  Jan.  31,  1841. 
If  Christians  desired  such  food  for  a  spiritual  growth,  and  their 
ministers  and  editors  were  base  enough  to  joyfully  deal  it  out  to 
them,  a  black  list  could  easily  be  furnished,  three  to  one  in  pro 
portion,  from  the  ranks  of  the  Universalist  ministry.  Think  of 
these  facts,  reader,  when  you  chance  to  take  up  a  Universalist 
paper,  and  see  some  doleful  account  of  the  "fruits  of  Par 
tialism." 

Modern  Universalism  has  had  its  birth  and  being  amid  the 
largest  religious  freedom,  and  has  used  its  license  to  the  full  ex 
tent,  as  the  world  knows  Its  advocates  have  traveled,  preached 


388  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

and  printed  at  their  will.  With  great  zeal  they  have  explained 
their  doctrines,  and  caricatured  evangelical  sentiments.  They 
have  converted  some  to  their  views,  and  induced  many  to  hate 
evangelical  sentiments  and  operations,  and  yet  with  all  these  ad 
vantages  we  find  the  wretched  state  of  things  described  by  the 
writers  we  have  quoted.  The  cause  of  this  is  told  in  a  few 
words,  namely  :  Universalism  is  not  of  God.  Its  motives  are 
not  those  which  God  has  furnished  to  move  the  heart  to  peni 
tence  and  piety.  Preaching  the  love  of  God  to  sinners,  at  the 
expense  of  other  revealed  truths,  never  did  or  can  produce  love 
to  God  in  the  heart.  On  the  other  hand  it  will  produce  irre- 
ligion  as  surely  as  a  constant  presentation  of  the  harsher  truths 
in  the  abstract  will  produce  fanaticism.  The  world  has  witnessed 
an  illustration  of  the  former  in  Universalism,  and  of  the  latter 
in  Millerism.  It  would  have  been  well  if  the  votaries  of  each 
of  these  delusions  had  heeded  the  words  of  Christ  to  the  devil, 
where  he  says:  "Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by 
EVERY  WORD  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God."  Matt. 
4:4. 

All  the  doctrines  of  revelation  should  have  an  influence  upon 
the  heart  to  give  it  a  proper  religious  balance.  It  is  not  a  pre 
sentation  of  the  abstract  idea  that  God  is  love,  that  produces 
love  to  God  in  the  human  heart.  The  sinner  must  first  see  his 
disease  and  danger,  and  with  penitence  and  faith  receive  Christ 
as  his  Saviour;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  is  the  love  of  God 
produced  in  the  heart ;  not  by  hearing  that  God  is  love,  but  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Kom.  5  :  5. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  if  Universalism  is  thus  baneful  in  its 
influence,  how  is  it  that  some  respectable  men  are  found  in  the 
denomination  ?  We  answer  :  That  they  are  so  upon  the  same 
principle  that  some,  who  openly  profess  Infidelity,  are  persons  of 
many  good  qualities,  in  many  respects  good  citizens,  and  kind 
neighbors.  We  are  all  aware  that  there  are  some  such  Infi 
dels,  yet  no  Christian  thinks  of  attributing  these  good  qualities 
of  theirs  to  Infidelity,  but  they  possess  them  in  spite  of  Infidel- 


Sec.   138.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  389 

ity.  Notwithstanding  their  hatred  to  Christianity,  they  are 
greatly  indebted  to  it  for  its  moulding  and  elevating  influence 
upon  their  own  character.  If  their  birth  and  education  had  been 
in  a  heathen  land,  they  would  doubtless  have  been  as  debased 
as  millions  now  are  who  possess  minds  naturally  as  good  as  their 
own.  Now  these  respectable  Universalists  occupy  the  same  po 
sition  in  respect  to  true  Christianity.  Many  of  them  are  chil 
dren  of  praying  parents,  and  all  have  had  the  advantages  of  a 
general  Christian  influence  and  instruction,  and  were  the  same 
respectable  men,  before  they  had  any  connection  with  Universal- 
ism,  and  some  of  them  still  retain  this  character,  in  spite  of 
Universalism  and  their  opposition  to  truth.  This  system  had  no 
agency  in  giving  them  this  character.  It  is  a  fact,  too,  that  not 
a  few  of  this  class  are  not  aware  of  all  the  absurdities  which  must 
be  believed,  and  all  the  truth  which  must  be  rejected,  in  order  to 
be  a  consistent  modern  Universalist. 

CXXXVIII.  The  bugbear  of  insanity  and  suicide  caused, 
as  they  say,  by  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  is  an  im 
portant  matter  to  be  kept  before  their  people  by  Universalist 
editors. 

"  The  occasions  of  insanity  are  various  as  the  numerous  sub 
jects  which  claim  the  attention  of  the  mind.  In  most  cases,  the 
cause,  near  or  remote,  is  in  the  constitution,  latent  until  revealed 
by  some  casual  circumstance,  which  imparts  a  sudden  or  unusual 
excitement  to  the  mind.  In  very  many  instances,  the  direct  oc 
casion  is  known  to  be  a  hereditary  pro-disposition  to  insanity, 
which  is  almost  sure  to  show  itself  at  a  particular  stage  of  men 
tal  development,  under  all  circumstances.  In  general,  any  sub 
ject  which  attracts  attention,  and  excites  the  mind  beyond  what 
is  consistent  with  health  of  body  or  mind,  tends  to  destroy  the 
harmony  of  the  mind  and  produce  insanity.  In  some  countries, 
cases  of  insanity  are  much  more  numerous  than  in  others.  Cli 
mate,  diet,  and  customs,  become  inducing  causes,  by  the  influ 
ence  they  exert  over  physical  and  mental  developments.  The 


390 


TJNIVEESALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 


exciting  cause  of  insanity,  in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  are  either 
of  a  business  character,  or   arise  from  sudden  and  calamitous 
change,   of  one  kind  or  another,  in  worldly  circumstances  or 
prospects.     Eecent  investigations  of  this  subject  in  Paris  confirm 
these  remarks,  and  so  does  the  last  report  from  our  own  State 
(New  York)  Asylum.     Out  of  sixteen  hundred  and  nine  cases, 
only  one  hundred  and  fifty-two   are  put  down  as  occasioned  by 
'religious  anxiety,'   leaving  fifteen   hundred  and  fifty-seven  to 
be  referred  to  other  causes.     Out  of  fifty  professional  men  af 
fected  with  insanity,  only  eight  were  clergymen.     That  religious 
anxiety  does  in  some  cases  lead  to  insanity,  I  have  no  disposition 
to  deny ;  but  this  fact  is  no  argument  against  the  causes  of  this 
anxiety.     To  suppose  it  is,  would  compel  us  to  condemn  all 
mental   discipline,  and   all  business  transactions,   because   the 
anxieties   and   perplexities  connected  with   such   persuits,   are 
sometimes  inducing  causes  of  insanity.     Moreover,  I  wish  you 
to  mark  and  remember,  that  for  every  single  case  of  insanity 
produced  by  those  religious  feelings  which  arise  out  of  evangel 
ical  views  of  Christianity,  we  may  safely  calculate  upon  the  pres 
ervation  of  two  from  that  affliction,  by  the  salutary  and  conser 
vative   influence    of  that   same  religion.     By  far   the  greater 
amount  of  insanity  is  among  the  irreligious  and  depraved.     In 
so  far  as  they  are  brought   under  the   influence  and  power  of 
evangelical  religion,  are  they  reformed  and  preserved  from  those 
habits  of  dissipation,  and  acts  of  dishonesty  and  wild  specula 
tions  in  business,  which  lead  to  so  many  catastrophies,  and  be 
come  the  inducing  cause  of  insanity.     This  subject  is  beginning 
to  be  understood  by  those  who  have  charge  of  the  insane,  who 
are  recommending  the  exercises  and  motives  of  religion,  as  a 
means  of  restoration.     The  Christian  religion  is  founded  on  the 
revealed  character  of  an  infinite  God,  and  is  therefore  adapted 
and  intended  to  call  into  exercise  the  highest  powers  of  the  hu 
man  mind.     A  religion  incapable  of  interesting  the  mind,  or 
exciting  it  to  an  extent  that  might,  under  some  circumstances, 
induce  insanity,  would,  in  my  humble  judgment,  be  unworthy 
the  attention  of  intelligent  beings."     Rev.  D.  Holmes. 


:     Sec.   138.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  391 

But  how  does  it  happen  that  so  many  who  have  been  deluded 
by  the  spirit  rappers,  become  insane  and  commit  some  most  hor 
rid  suicides,  when  they  are  assured  by  the  good  Universalist  and 
Infidel  managers,  that  the  spirits  declare  that  there  is  no  hell  ? 
Surely,  endless  punishment  is  not  the  cause  of  this.  Why  do 
Universalists  become  insane,  and  why  do  they  commit  suicide  ? 
Why  did  A.  V.  Bassett,  a  Universalist  minister  in  Dedham, 
Mass.,  commit  suicide  by  cutting  his  throat  a  few  years  since  ? 
Was  Partialism  the  cause  ?  Why  did  young  Crawford  hang 
himself  in  the  jail  at  Lowell  ?  Was  Partialism  the  cause  of 
this  ?  Did  he  believe  that  an  endless  hell  awaited  him  in  the 
future  ?  No  man  with  such  a  belief,  possessing  as  sane  a  mind 
as  the  letters  left  by  Crawford  evinced,  could  have  committed 
suicide.  This  act  was  a  most  cool  and  deliberate  one.  We 
learn  from  an  article  published  in  a  Lowell  paper  at  the  time, 
that  Crawford  had  been  educated  a  Universalist,  that  his  pa 
rents  were  of  that  faith,  and  that  his  father  was  very  zealous  in 
the  cause.  Crawford  had  connected  himself  with  a  gang  of 
counterfeiters,  was  detected  in  the  business,  and  confined  in  jail 
to  await  his  trial,  which  would  have  taken  place  in  June,  1840. 
Knowing  the  evidence  of  his  guilt  was  such  that  he  could  not 
escape  the  state  prison,  he  resolved  on  committing  suicide.  He 
wrote  one  letter  to  a  man  respecting  his  business,  and  another  to 
his  mother,  assigning  the  reason  for  committing  the  fatal  deed, 
as  follows : 

' '  He  had  got  into  trouble  —  and  trouble  for  life  —  and  he 
thought  he  would  get  out  of  trouble  the  shortest  way."  "He 
bade  his  friends  farewell  till  they  should  meet  in  an  unknown 
world,  where  parting  was  not  known." 

Now,  as  horrid  as  it  is,  we  contend  that  Crawford  reasoned 
like  a  philosopher,  and  acted  a  most  consistent  part,  believing  as 
he  did.  Why,  we  ask,  should  a  man  suffer  in  the  state  prison, 
and  then  the  ignominy  and  disgrace  all  his  iifo  of  having  been 
there,  when  heavenly  bliss  is  so  near  him,  that  a  piece  of  rope, 
the  razor,  or  the  pistol,  will  give  him  a  sure  transition  thither  in 


392  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

a  few  moments  ?  Young  Crawford  showed  that  he  possessed  no 
slavish  fear  of  his  Heavenly  Father.  He  evinced,  too,  his  faith 
by  his  works,  and  this  act  calls  loudly  upon  those  who  are  of 
like  faith  to  go  and  do  likewise,  and  take  as  many  more  with 
them  as  possible,  especially  if  they  are  in  trouble,  and  thus  show 
their  philanthropy  and  benevolence. 

A  few  years  since  a  Baptist  minister,  in  Maine,  was  deluded 
into  a  belief  of  Universalism,  and  on  a  day  he  gave  his  reasons 
for  renouncing  his  former  belief  and  embracing  his  new  opin 
ions.  This  was  a  great  day  with  the  Universalists  in  that  re 
gion,  and  they  listened  to  his  story  most  joyfully.  But  a  short 
time  elapsed,  however,  before  the  poor  man,  availing  himself  of 
the  privilege  of  a  Universalist,  committed  suicide  by  hanging, 
and  thus  evinced  his  faith  by  his  works.  A  minister  of  the 
right  stamp  for  such  an  occasion  was  employed  for  the  funeral, 
and  the  audience  listened  to  the  stale  perversion  of,  "For  he 
that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin."  Horn.  6  :  7.  (Sec.  VI.) 

Is  it  said  that  the  man  was  insane  ?  This  act  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  evidence  of  it,  if  Universalism  is  true.  Is  it  not  ra 
tional  to  escape  all  evil,  and  secure  the  greatest  amount  of  per 
manent  good  possible  ?  Does  not  the  suicide  do  this,  if  Uni 
versalism  is  the  truth  ?  Most  certainly  he  does.  Is  it  still  con 
tended  that  he  was  insane  ?  But  how  could  that  have  been, 
when  he  so  firmly  believed  Universalism  ?  Does  Universalism 
produce  insanity  ?  The  leaders  in  the  order  would  do  well  to 
be  looking  into  this.  This  case  occurred  in  Harmony,  Maine. 
For  the  sake  of  surviving  friends  we  would  say  nothing  of  such 
cases,  were  it  not  to  show  that  modern  Universalism,  when  sin 
cerely  embraced,  leads  directly  to  suicide,  especially  when  earthly 
hopes  are  blasted  or  comforts  destroyed. 

The  editors  in  the  order  are  cruelly  reckless  of  the  feelings  of 
friends,  when  they  can  in  any  way  turn  a  suicide  against  future 
punishment.  They  iterate  and  reiterate  such  cases  with  all  the 
recklessness  of  misanthropes.  Were  other  editors  equally  reck 
less,  they  could  present  an  astonishing  array  of  suicides  commit- 
ed  by  those  who  had  no  fear  of  the  future. 


Sec.  138.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  393 

The  effects  of  removing  all  fear  from  the  minds  of  wicked 
men,  respecting  the  future,  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  the  French 
people.  We  are  told  by  a  French  writer  in  the  New  York  Ob 
server,  that  "it  is  estimated  that  there  are  in  France  at  least 
three  or  four  thousand  suicides  a  year." 

Is  it  a  belief  in  endless  punishment  which  causes  so  much 
suicide  among  the  French  ?  No  ;  for  they  are  as  strong  in  their 
hatred  to  this  doctrine  as  American  Universalists  are.  The 
writer  tells  us  the  cause  is  their  belief  in  Materialism,  by  which 
all  fear  of  future  retribution  is  removed.  A  great  portion  of 
the  French  people  look  upon  man  as  a  machine  —  to  run  for  a 
while ;  and  that^  death  is  an  eternal  sleep.  The  thought  of 
suicide  enters  into  their  business  calculations,  and  misfortune  in 
speculation,  a  little  trouble  or  disgrace,  carries  them  out  of  the 
world  by  their  own  hands.  He  gives  the  case  of  a  comedian, 
who  killed  himself  because  he  heard  a  hiss.  To  illustrate  this 
position,  he  presents  the  following  respecting  a  murderer  : 

"  We  have  seen  the  same  doctrine  advanced  before  the  courts, 
by  an  assassin,  who  was  a  man  of  some  education.  This  wretch, 
named  Lacenaire,  gravely  told  the  court  that  he  had  made  a  sort 
of  algebraic  equation  between  the  advantages  and  the  dangers 
of  crime.  '  I  knew  well,'  said  he,  '  that  by  killing  others  I  ex 
posed  myself  to  perish  on  the  scaffold.  But  what  is  the  punish 
ment  of  the  scaffold  ?  It  is  a  momentary  pain,  and  then  comes 
annihilation.  I  foresaw  what  has  overtaken  me  ;  but  meanwhile 
I  have  enjoyed  the  fruit  of  my  assassinations,  and  I  persist  in 
maintaining  that  I  made  a  good  calculation.  Since  I  have  fallen 
into  your  hands,  condemn  me,  and  cut  off  my  head  ;  you  are 
my  enemies  and  I  am  yours  ;  we  shall  be  even.  I  do  not  at  all 
regret  having  killed  several  persons  to  seize  what  belonged  to 
them;  I  would  do  it  again  if  I  could.'  Thus  spoke  Lacenaire 
at  his  famous  trial." 

Ungodly  men  love  the  doctrine  of  annihilation  in  proportion 
to  their  love  of  sin,  and  as  they  become  wretched  by  it.     It  is 
the  good  man  who  can  appreciate  the  value  of  the  soul,  and  the 
18 


394  TTNIVERSALISM   NOT   OF   TIIE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

joys  of  heaven,  who  shudders  at  the  idea  of  annihilation.  Now 
we  ask,  is  there  not  as  much  in  American  Universalism  to  divest 
the  worst  of  men  of  all  fear  of  the  future,  as  there  is  in  French 
Materialism  ?  Suppose  we  substitute  for  these  views,  so  common 
in  France,  the  idea  that  unspeakable  and  eternal  bliss  awaits  every 
man  in  the  future,  irrespective  of  character  in  this  world,  could 
we  expect  suicides  would  be  any  less  frequent  among  them  ? 
The  reader  can  judge. 

After  all  the  hatred  to  evangelical  doctrines,  and  clamor  for 
Universalism,  we  conclude  that  there  are  but  few  to  be  found 
among  them  who  have  not  their  fears,  in  their  thoughtful 
moments,  that  punishment  awaits  the  sinner  beyond  the  grave, 
and  that  the  church,  generally,  may  have  been  right  for  eighteen 
hundred  years  past,  while  they  have  been  mistaken.  In  this 
way,  and  this  only,  can  we  account  for  the  great  desire  of  life 
on  the  part  of  Universalists,  even  though  some  of  them  are  ex 
tremely  wretched  here. 

The  Christian  believes  that  deliberate  suicide  would  shut  his 
soul  out  of  heaven,  and  consign  it  to  unutterable  woe  ;  and  under 
its  influence  he  never  would  commit  the  deed.  But  Universal- 
ism  teaches  that  there  is  nothing  for  any  to  fear  beyond  this  life  ; 
that  the  man  who  puts  an  end  to  his  own  life,  or  dies  in  the  act 
of  taking  the  life  of  another,  shall  be  immediately  crowned  with 
Paul,  and  enter  into  bliss  ;  for  it  says  that  there  is  no  condition 
for  man  in  the  future,  but  that  in  which  he  will  be  as  the  angels 
of  God  in  heaven.  (Sec.  CXXXVI.) 

One  thought  more.  Such  is  the  disparity  of  numbers,  that 
for  every  Universalist  minister  that  becomes  insane,  there  should 
be  at  least  sixty-one  believers  in  future  punishment  afflicted  in 
the  same  way,  to  make  it  equal ;  and  so  with  suicides.  What  a 
shout  would  ring  through  the  Universalist  camp,  if  sixty-one 
evangelical  ministers  were  to  commit  suicide  on  the  same  day  ; 
but  this  would  be  no  more  in  proportion  than  for  one  Universal 
ist  minister  to  die  by  his  own  hands  on  that  day.  (Sec. 
CXXIX.)  If  there  is  any  argument  in  the  simple  fact  that 


Sec.    139.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  395 

believers  in  future  punishment  sometimes  become  insane  or  com 
mit  suicide,  that  argument  lies  with  equal  force  against  Univer- 
salism,  since  some  of  its  votaries  are  found  in  the  same  condition, 
and  do  the  same  thing.  Religious  men  sometimes  become 
insane,  when  their  religion  has  nothing  to  do  with  producing  it, 
as  every  well  informed  man  knows. 

CXXXIX.  Much  has  been  written  by  Universalists  to  show 
that  endless  punishment  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  love  of 
God,  and  much  has  been  written  by  Atheists  to  prove  that  pres 
ent  evil  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  an  infinitely  perfect 
Being ;  and  the  arguments  of  the  last  named  class  are  of  equal 
force  with  those  of  the  first.  It  by  no  means  follows  that 
because  some  things  appear  to  us  unreasonable,  that  therefore 
they  are  so  in  themselves  or  in  their  relations.  Tell  a  savage  of 
the  wonders  of  the  magnetic  telegraph,  and  left  simply  to  his 
reason  he  would  exclaim,  I  cannot  believe  it;  for  it  is  unrea 
sonable.  But  let  him  become  assured  of  the  superior  information 
and  strict  veracity  of  his  informer,  and  relying  upon  his  word, 
he  would  believe  the  fact,  although  his  reason  could  not  compass 
the  manner  of  its  existence,  or  its  mode  of  operations.  This 
faintly  illustrates  the  relation  of  man's  reason  to  the  revelation 
and  ways  of  God.  We  say  faintly,  for  while  there  is  a  vast  dif 
ference  between  an  enlightened  mind  and  the  mind  of  a  savage, 
there  is,  between  the  greatest  mind  of  man  and  the  mind  of  the 
All-wise  God,  an  infinitely  greater  disparity  ;  hence,  what  may 
appear  perfectly  reasonable  to  his  mind,  may  appear  unreasona 
ble  to  man.  Reason  is  to  be  employed  in  religion  to  learn  what 
God  has  revealed,  and  not  to  dictate  what  God  must  reveal. 
The  sincere  believer  in  the  Bible  relies  upon  the  superior  knowl 
edge  and  strict  veracity  of  its  Author,  and  therefore  admits  the 
existence  of  facts,  when  revealed,  the  mode  and  relations  of  which 
he  cannot  fully  understand.  Some  things  may  be  far  beyond 
human  reason,  but  not  contrary  to  right  reason.  God  has  endued 
man  with  only  a  portion  of  that  reason  which  he  possesses  in 


396  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

absolute  perfection.  The  great  fault  with  Universalists  is,  that 
while  they  have  professed  deference  for  the  Bible,  they  have 
ever  practised  upon  nationalistic  principles.  (Sec.  XCVIII, 
CXVIIf.)  They  first  assume  what  is  reasonable,  according  to 
their  limited  conception  of  things,  in  the  government  of  God, 
and  then,  not  to  be  considered  infidels  outright,  they  bring  the 
Bible  twisted  into  all  manner  of  shapes,  to  sustain  their  theories. 
We  believe  that  endless  punishment  harmonizes  with  the  love  of 
God,  because  they  are  both  revealed  ;  and  the  believer  in  the  Bible 
need  go  no  further.  We  believe,  also,  that  sin  and  present 
misery  harmonize  with  the  love  of  God.  But  had  we  no  knowl 
edge  of  their  existence,  we  could  never,  by  reasoning  from  the 
attributes  of  God,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  do  exist ; 
much,  less  could  we  harmonize  their  existence  with  the  love  of 
God.  The  Bible  reveals  the  love  of  God,  and  matter  of  fact 
teaches  us  the  sad  lesson  that  human  misery  is  widely  extended. 
To  say  that  this  vast  amount  of  human  suffering  is  to  secure  a 
greater  amount  of  good  to  man  in  the  end,  does  not  help  the 
matter,  as  may  be  seen  Sec.  CIV.  and  CXIV. 

CXL.  A  striking  evidence  of  the  antagonism  of  Universalism 
to  the  Bible,  is  seen  in  the  frequent  explanations  its  advocates 
are  obliged  to  give  of  numerous  portions  of  scripture,  to  keep 
their  people  in  anything  like  a  believing  trim.  Common  sense 
often  rebels,  and  the  text  explained  does  not  remain  explained. 
No  class  of  men  are  called  upon  for  explanations  of  scripture  so 
often,  according  to  their  own  account,  as  Universalist  ministers 
and  editors.  It  is  quite  amusing  to  look  over  files  of  the  Trum 
pet,  in  our  possession,  for  eleven  years,  and  see  how  often  the 
game  text  is  explained.  Some  member  of  a  Christian  church 
desires  to  become  a  Universalist  if  he  can,  and  a  text  must  be 
cleared  away  for  his  benefit ;  or  some  disciple  is  in  doubt,  and 
something  must  be  done  for  him ;  or  some  believer  in  eternal 
punishment  has  sent  a  poser  to  the  editor,  and  that  must  be  attended 
to.  This  affords  Mr.  Wliittemore,  with  some  show  of  reason,  an 


Sec.  140.]  UNIVERSALISM   NOT    OF   THE   BIBLE. 


397 


opportunity  of  publishing  his  stale  stereotyped  arguments  and  per 
versions  again  and  again.  No  ministers  have  so  many  texts 
selected  for  them  — none  meet  with  so  many  inquirers  after 
truth.  A  minister  receives  a  request  through  the  post  office ;  it 
may  be  written  by  himself,  to  give  his  views  of  a  certain  scrip 
ture  ;  and  who  can  blame  him  now,  if  he  lets  go  a  whole  broad 
side  against  the  Partialists !  Who  can  blame  him  if  he  gives  the 
old  rigmarole  upon  Sheol,  Hades,  and  Gehenna  ?  That  some 
of  these  letters  are  written  upon  the  editor's  table  or  in  the  m:n- 
ister's  study,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  for  priestcraft  is  not 
confined  to  the  Romish  clergy  ;  but  that  they  have  many  inquir 
ers  who  find  it  impossible  to  harmonize  the  views  they  cherish 
with  the  Bible,  is  also  true.  It  is  this  difficulty  with  the  Bible, 
which  brings  forth  such  a  great  amount  of  doctrinal  matter  in 
their  periodicals  and  books.  You  can  seldom  take  up  a  number 
of  some  of  their  leading  papers,  without  finding  in  it  a  doctrinal 
essay  or  sermon,  to  say  nothing  of  other  baseless  arguments  and 
clap-trap  paragraphs,  thrown  in  by  the  editor  and  others.  Then 
look  at  the  great  number  of  then;  doctrinal  books.  In  proportion 
to  their  numbers,  they  have  doubtless  ten  times  more  doctrinal 
matter  afloat  than  any  evangelical  denomination  in  our  country. 
Evangelical  Christians  are  not  under  the  necessity  of  constantly 
repeating  their  arguments  in  proof  of  their  doctrine,  or  in  oppo 
sition  to  Universalism  ;  neither  are  their  editors  often  catechized 
concerning  troublesome  texts.  Now  why  is  this  ?  Is  it  because 
their  people  do  not  study  the  Bible,  or  are  indifferent  to  what  it 
teaches  ?  By  no  means.  It  is  because  they  confide  in  the 
Bible,  having  no  doubt  concerning  the  meaning  of  those  passa 
ges  used  to  sustain  their  doctrine.  This  great  labor  of  Univcr- 
salists  to  prove  their  doctrines,  reminds  us  of  a  boy  we  knew 
when  at  school,  who  was  a  notorious  liar,  and  seemed  to  feel 
obliged  to  repeat  a  statement  several  times,  with  great 
vehemence,  in  order  to  be  believed.  Indeed,  such  is  the  vast 
labor  required  to  make  Universalism  even  plausible  from  the 
scriptures,  that  its  advocates  can  find  time  for  but  little  else  save 
to  prove  their  doctrine,  and  help  the  numerous  doubting  ones. 


398  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE    BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

CXLI.  The  advocates  of  Universalism  boast  much  of  the 
superior  moral  influence  of  their  system,  because  of  the  better 
view  it  presents  of  God  ;  and  it  is  assumed  that  our  views  of 
God's  penalties  are  productive  of  revenge,  cruelty,  and  bloodshed 
among  men ;  for,  say  they,  if  God  punishes  when  it  is  not  for  the 
good  of  the  sufferer,  then  it  is  right  for  man  to  do  the  same,  as 
he  is  certainly  at  liberty  to  imitate  his  God  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
man  may  treat  an  offending  fellow  man,  as  God  treats  an  offend 
ing  creature  of  his.  Now  here  is  a  great  fallacy,  put  forth  and 
elaborated  by  the  whole  tribe  of  Universalist  advocates,  in  some 
form  or  other.  The  truth  is,  we  are  'not  at  liberty  to  even  at 
tempt  to  imitate  God  in  everything,  for  we  are  to  learn  our  duty, 
as  dependent  creatures,  not  so  much  from  what  God  does  as  from 
what  he  says.  The  fallacy  of  this  argument  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  the  Supreme  does  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  man  that 
one  mortal  stands  in  to  another  ;  and  as  the  relation  differs,  so 
must  the  conduct  differ.  God  has  given  us  a  written  revelation 
to  guide  us. .  This  points  out  most  clearly  our  duty  to  God  and 
man ;  and  if  some  men  have  taken  vengeance  into  their  own 
hands  with  the  idea  that  they  have  a  right  to  imitate  God,  it  is 
no  proof  that  the  idea  of  vengeance  in  the  divine  administration 
is  false,  but  only  shows  that  such  have  mistaken  their  rule  of 
duty.  God  demands,  and  has  a  right  so  to  do,  that  his  crea 
tures  worship  him ;  but  has  any  man  a  right,  in  imitation  of 
God,  to  claim  worship  from  his  fellow  men  ?  Certainly  not. 
Man-worship  has  obtained  in  the  llomish  Church  ;  but  is  this  to 
be  brought  as  argument  against  the  doctrine  that  God  is  to  be 
worshipped  ?  As  well  might  Universalists  do  this  as  to  urge 
the  cruelties  of  wicked  men  against  endless  punishment.  It  will 
not  be  contended  that  the  French  Atheists  were  under  the  influ 
ence  of  this  doctrine,  for  they  hated  it  as  ardently  as  our  Uni 
versalists  do  ;  but  the  world  has  witnessed  their  fierce  cruelty 
and  bloodshed,  and  thousands  who  clamor  against  endless  pun 
ishment  in  our  time,  have  hearts  no  better  than  theirs.  The 
origin  of  cruelty  is  found  in  the  depraved  nature  of  man  ;  and 


SeC.   141.]  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  599 

under  certain  circumstances,  whatever  his  doctrinal  views,  he 
will  be  heartless  and  cruel.  The  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  his 
heart,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  can  remove  the  difficulty.  But  the 
heart  can  never  be  improved  by  cherishing  a  hatred  to  God's 
penalties.  Cruelty  and  persecution,  it  is  said,  grow  legitimately 
out  of  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  because  men  will  imi 
tate  their  God.  This  is  precisely  the  argument  of  the  French 
Atheists  against  the  being  of  a  God.  He  is  the  Sovereign  of 
the  universe.  All  the  sovereignties  of  the  earth  grow  out  of  the 
idea  of  a  sovereign  above,  and  as  nature  teaches  equality,  the 
idea  of  a  king  above  must  be  banished  from  the  minds  of  the 
people,  before  earthly  thrones  can  be  destroyed.  This  was  their 
argument,  and  it  is  just  as  forcible  against  the  sovereignty  of 
God  as  the  Universalist  argument  we  are  considering  is  against 
endless  punishment.  We  are  not  prepared,  however,  to  deny 
the  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty,  because  there  is  king-craft 
upon  earth. 

The  scriptures  speak  of  God's  executing  vengeance,  which  is 
the  opposite  of  good.  Take  the  following:  "  Dearly  beloved, 
avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto  wrath  :  for  it 
is  written,  Vengeance  is  mine ;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord. 
Therefore  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him  ;  if  he  thirst,  give 
him  drink ;  for  in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his 
head.  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good." 
Rom.  12  :  19-21.  Here  man  is  prohibited  the  right  of  taking 
vengeance  on  an  enemy,  and  the  reason  assigned  is,  that  it  is  God's 
prerogative.  God  executes  vengeance  ;  but  as  man  does  not 
hold  the  same  relation  to  his  fellow  man  that  God  holds  to  man, 
as  his  lawgiver  and  Judge,  he  may  not  imitate  God  in  avenging 
himself.  Man  must  seek  to  overcome  evil  with  good  ;  but  God, 
instead  of  overcoming  evil  with  good,  will  execute  vengeance  ; 
and  thus  we  see  that  vengeance  in  the  passage  stands  opposed  to 
good,  for,  "  Vengeance  is  mine,  2  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord" 
In  the  light  of  this,  we  see  the  sophistry  of  that  question  so  often 
and  artfully  put  by  Universalists,  namely  :  "If  God  requires  us 


400  UNIVERSALISM    NOT    OF    THE   BIBLE.  [Part  II. 

to  overcome  evil  with  good,  will  he  not  do  the  same  for  all  his 
creatures  ?  "  Is  it  said  that  the  term  vengeance  is  not  to  be 
understood  in  a  harsh  sense,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  disciplinary 
punishment  for  the  good  of  the  sufferer  ?  This  view  reduces  the 
text  to  a  senseless  mass  of  contradiction.  It  makes  the  apostle 
say,  "  Dearly  beloved,  do  no  good  unto  your  enemies  ;  for  it  is 
written,  good  is  mine,  I  will  do  them  good,  saith  the  Lord ; 
therefore,  my  brethren,  overcome  evil  with  good."  Attach  the 
sense  to  "vengeance"  that  Universalists  do,  and  all  must  see 
that  this  is  a  correct  paraphrase,  as  absurd  as  it  is.  We  see  that 
the  term  must  be  understood  as  expressing  a  positive  evil  in 
opposition  to  good. 

Did  space  admit,  it  might  be  shown  that  the  severe  punish 
ments  recorded  in  the  Bible,  such  as  those  upon  the  Sodomites 
and  others,  are  liable  to  the  same  objection  we  have  been  consid 
ering  ;  for  were  these  acts  of  God  extensively  imitated  by  his 
creatures,  great  cruelty  must  be  the  result.  Not  that  God  was 
cruel  in  destroying  the  Sodomites,  but  it  would  be  cruel  in  men 
to  burn  their  fellow  men  with  fire  and  brimstone,  because  they 
are  not  at  liberty  to  imitate  God  in  such  a  work,  for  reasons 
already  given. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Tage 

Anger  of  God,  proved  endless  by  U.  arguments, 48,  261 

not  a  passion,  as  in  men, 33' 

not  retained  forever, 206 

All  nations,  sense  of, 1 

gathered  at  Jerusalem, 96 

All  shall  know  the  Lord,  perversion, 22 

All  one  in  Christ,  perversion, 22 

Angels,  holy,  are  polluted  heathen, 61, 95, 177 

all  men  to  be  equal  to  them, ^ 

fallen,  reserved  in  chains, ^ 

All  Israel  shall  be  saved,  perversion, 27 

All  men  saved  years  ago, 4 

drawn  to  Christ, 10< 

Atonement,  vicarious,  denied, 29 

Apostles  persecuted  for  preaching  U.  refuted, 258 

All,  not  always  a  universal  whole, 76 

Aion,  considered, 

I    ,.•  ...305 

Age-lasting,  • 

All  flesh  not  expressive  of  the  whole  race, 88 

Apocalypse,  when  written, 31' 

does  not  refer  to  the-future  state, 58 

All  saved  without  future  suffering, •• 32- 

the  idea  first  advocated  by  a  man  calling  himself  a  minister, 371 

After  death  the  judgment,  (Heb.  9:  27,28,) ....60 

All  things,  restitution  of, 13 

All  kindreds,  sense  of, oi/oi* 

As  in  Adam  all  die, 21' 

Anthenagoras,  his  sentiments 

Annihilation,  its  influence, 

sustained  by  quibbles, • 

who  love  the  doctrine, 

Attributes  of  God,  argument  from, 86, 87,  287, 288,  321-323 


404  GENERAL   INDEX. 

Blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 23,  303 

Ballou,  2d  H.,  rebukes  the  perversion  of  Rev.  5 :  13, 58 

says  of  the  Fathers,  for  more  than  100  years  after  St.  John, 

11  that  there  was  a  future  state  of  suffering,  they  all  agreed," 369 

Barnabas,  his  views, 367 

Ballou,  sen.,  H.,  a  preacher  27  years  before  he  learnt  that  there  is  no 

future  judgment, 371 

his  reply  concerning  the  devils  in  the  swine, 269,  270 

his  disbelief  of  miracles, 333 

Balfour,  W.,  denies  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 218 

Bigotry,  charged  with,  for  disfellowship  of  U., 374-380 

Conditions  implied  when  not  expressed, 17,  163 

Christ,  revealed  from  heaven  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed, 61 

never  died  as  Priest, 51, 52 

came  not  to  save  men  in  the  future  world:  quotations  from 

Ballou,  Whittemore,  Williamson,  and  Skinner, 291,  292 

saves  none  from  all  sin  in  either  world, 293 

deficient  as  a  teacher  of  U 364 

came  not  to  destroy  sin,  and  reform  the  sinner, 124 

came  not  to  judge  the  world, 121 

his  temptation, 265-275 

careful  to  correct  the  errors  of  the  age,  Mr.  Whittemore's  tes 
timony,    357 

made  a  sinner  by  U 214,215,  268 

Christians,  not  gathered  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed, 64 

fled  from  the  scene, 68,  96,  97 

their  duty  in  respect  to  U 379,  380 

appeals  to  their  fears, 153 

Grown  at  the  end  against  U 105 

Controversy,  caution  to  be  used, 345 

Coming  of  Christ,  the  same  in  1  Thess.  4: 15-18  and  2  Thess.  1:  7-10, 66 

also  Matt.  25:  31-36  and  1  Cor.  15:  23, 99, 100,  230 

predicted  Matt.  16 :  27, 28,  and  fulfilled  Matt.  17 : 1-5, 103 

five  different  comings, 104 

Jerusalem's  destruction  never  so  called, 102 

Cain  not  threatened  with  endless  punishment, 83,  84 

Confess,  every  tongue  shall, .'  138 

Changed  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye, 230, 231 

Church  of  Christ,  a  vile  body, 300 

all  belong  to  it, 300 

Church  forming  not  successful ;    why  ? 386 

Creature  subject  to  vanity,  (Rom.  8:  20,) 307 

Chauncey,  Dr.,  his  opinion  of  Rev.  20 : 12-15, 314,315 

Clemens  Romanus,  his  views, 367 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


405 


Clemens  Alexandrinus,  his  views, 368 

Coppin,  Richard,  account  of, 3^1 

Christian,  his  views  of  the  gospel, 17° 

Conscience,  hell  of, 112-115 

Cloak  at  Troas,  Williamson's  illustrations,  260, 261 

Creed,  obliged  to  make  one, 33° 

Crawford,  the  suicide, 391 

Doctrines  of  IL,  arguments  to  prove  often  repeated,  and  why, 396,  397 

Damnation,  opposed  to  salvation, 283 

one  of  the  precious  promises, 283 

Dead,  sense  of,  (Bom.  6 :  7,) 30 

Devil,  children  of, < .   ^4 

Elymas,  child  of, 45 

Judas  so  called, 271 

destruction  of, 185 

personality  of, 265-275 

why  suffered  to  do  so  much  mischief, 273 

piety  connected  with  a  belief  of, 274 

Devil  and  his  angels,  different  interpretations  by  Whittemore  and  Page,.  .97 

Devils  enter  the  swine, 268> 269 

personality  of,  a  Jewish  belief, 270 

quotation  from  Dr.  Clarke, 268 

Destruction>of  Jerusalem,  not  the  judgment  so  often  named, 67, 68 

Jews  and  Christians  not  separated  then, 96,  97 

the  expression  not  used  by  the  apostles, 327 

all  the  Jews  fully  punished  before  that  time, 284 

Christians  not  gathered  then, 96,  64 

Christian  dispensation  did  not  commence  then, 181,  93 

Desire  of  the  righteous,  used  in  proof  of  U., 199 

Death,  no  more,  perversion, 207 

destruction  of,  not  salvation, 223 

moral,  absurdity  of  interpreting  John  5 :  28,  29, 192 

of  Christ,  deceptive  use  of  the  passages  which  teach  it, 290 

Deceptive  means,  numbers  in  the  U.  ministry  from  other  orders,  com 
parative  view, 352,  353 

Difference  between  U.  and  Evangelical  Christians,  testimony  of  lead 
ing  men, 375-377 

Divine  favor  neither  gained  nor  lost, 295 

Die  in  your  sins, 124 

Dods,  J.  B.,  a  quotation  from  him  on  the  resurrection, 219 

Discussions,  who  should  engage  in  them, 346 

Disciplinary  punishment  ineffectual, .- 286,  287 

Every  creature,  this  expression  considered, 67 


406  GENERAL   INDEX. 

Everlasting  punishment,  rebuke  of  Dr.  Huntington, 91 

Dr.  A.  Clarke, 98 

not  inflicted  at  Jerusalem, 62 

cannot  be  inflicted  in  this  world, 306 

Jews  and  Gentiles  believed  it, 356 

Christ  and  his  apostles  never  contradicted  it, 859 

not  glad  tidings, 169 

a  belief  in  it  constitutes  a  Christian,  charge  refuted, 343 

productive  of  cruelty  among  men, 398-400 

Everlasting,  eternal,  forever,  meaning  of, 301 

Endless,  a  favorite  word  with  U., 304 

Eternal  life,  its  future-state  reference  denied, 71,  147-151 

Whittemore  versus  Whittemore  upon  this  expression, 80,  150, 151 

a  gift, 276 

Exposure  of  U.  beneficial  to  truth, 338,  339 

Elect,  Paul's  anxiety  for  them, 46,  74,  82 

Enemies  of  Christ  under  his  feet  not  salvation, 222 

Eternal  death,  expression  not  in  the  Bible, 324 

Evangelical  sentiments  demoralizing, 106,  107,  398 

Faith  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  sophistry, 48 

Future  punishment,  doctrine  of,  a  result  of  U.  interpretations,  29, 69, 166, 167 

Future  suffering  denied, 70 

Future  existence  not  affected  by  our  conduct  here,  Williamson, 259 

Whittemore, 37,  147 

idea  refuted, 106-116,  231-233 

Father,  God  a,  U.  views  refuted, 41-46 

Mr.  French  out  upon  his  brethren  for  their  perversions  of  Gen.  12: 2,  3. .  .19 

Rom.  11 :  26, 29,  30 

John  3:  35, 79 

John  12 :  31, 122 

Lam.  3 :  31, 131 

1  Tim.  2:4, 132 

Fear  appealed  to, 145 

jailor, 211 

subject  discussed, 151-155 

fear  of  God,  Whittemore  versus  Balfour, 239 

U.  have  their  fears, 394 

every  penalty  an  appeal  to  fear, 153 

Flaming  fire,  (2  Thess.  1 :  8,)  a  specimen  from  Ballou, 60 

Fathers,  Christian,  their  views  concerning  a  future  state, 365-369 

Felix,  why  he  trembled, 135 

Fatalism  of  U., 288,  203-206 

Forbearance  of  God,  U.  robs  him  of  it, 164 

Future  state,  what  you  desire  it  to  be,  it  shall  be, 381 

Free  will  a  chimera, 203 


GENERAL   INDEX.  407 

Good,  overcome  evil  with, 399 

Grace  abounding  more  than  sin, 72, 73 

no  grace  in  U., 280 

Generation,  its  meaning, 94 

Gospel,  affects  not  our  future  condition, 146 

preached  in  the  future  state,  a  result  of  U.  views, 167 

commission  contains  no  U., 167, 168 

good  tidings  of  great  joy, 166-170 

God,  all  and  in  all,  not  salvation, 223 

not  imitated  by  man, 398 

Gehenna,  whole  subject  considered, 238-251 

German  Universalism, 330 

Grain  sown  in  one  state  and  reaped  in  another, 146 

George,  W.  C.,  a  disrelish  in  the  order  to  practical  preaching,  384 

George,  J.,  his  statement  of  the  deplorable  condition  of  the  order, 385 

God  worse  than  man,  result  of  U.  reasonings, 42, 43 

Gomorrah  not  threatened  with  endless  punishment, 84 

Graves,  Jews  and  Christians  raised  from,  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  189 
"  come  up  out  of  your  graves,"  Ez.  37: 12,  sophistry  exposed,. .  .190 
and  resurrection  connected  in  but  one  place  in  the  Bible,  reply  to,  193 

Gift,  salvation  a, 276 

Gracious  words,  silly  argument, 85 

Good  tidings  of  great  joy, 166 

Hermas,  his  view, 368 

Hypocrites,  or  U.  professing  other  views 345-349 

Huntington,  Dr.,  influence  of  U.  upon  him, 347 

High  Priests,  never  died  figuratively, 51 

Hope,  wicked  may  hope  for  more  than  the  good, 59 

Paul's  hope,  (Acts  24 :  15,)  examined, 36 

can  you  hope  for  endless  misery  ?  answer  to, 48 

Heathen  given  to  Christ,  argument  refuted, 78-82 

Hell,  no  account  of  its  creation, 87,  88 

Paul  never  used  the  word, 325-327 

Heaven  not  a  state  or  place  of  happiness  after  death, 126-129 

all  men  came  down  from  heaven, 186 

Hades,  opinion  of  the  Jews, 92 

Christ  spoke  in  accordance  with  this  opinion, 256,  360 

Historical  falsehood  concerning  endless  punishment,  refuted, 365 

History,  Ancient,  of  U.,  facts  stated, 369 

Modern,  facts  stated, 370-372 

Heirs  of  promise, 18 

Issues,  false,  on  God  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 261 

meriting  heaven, 276 

shuffling  from  doctrines  to  denominations, 329, 330 


408  GENERAL   INDEX. 

Insanity,  caused  by  endless  punishment, 389 

Infidelity  of  U., 377-380 

Immutability  of  God,  false  reasoning  from, 48,  261 

Judgment,  day  of,  means  gospel  day,  refuted, 33,  34 

divers  opinions  of  Heb.  9:27,  28, 50 

current  view  refuted, 61-55 

reserved  unto, 118, 119 

Judgment,  future,  how  treated, 119 

resurrection  and  judgment  at  the  end  of  time, 124,  133 

judgment,  Rom.  14 : 10, 11,  parallel  with  Phil.  2 :  9-11,  concealed 

by  U.,  and  why, , 139 

opinion  of  the  Jews, 92 

why  called  to  judgment,  if  souls  enter  bliss  or  misery  at 

death? 328,  329 

not  said  to  be  in  eternity, 328 

sins  open  beforehand  to,  1  Tim.  5 : 24, 136 

general  in  the  earth  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed, 68 

"  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world,"  John  12:  31 ;  its  perver 
sion  rebuked  by  Mr.  French, 122 

Judge  and  judgment  used  in  different  senses, 119 

Judgeth  in  the  earth,  sophistry  exposed, : 120 

Justin  Martyr,  gives  the  belief  of  the  church  respecting  future  pun 
ishment,  365-367 

Jailor,  case  of, 210 

Justice  and  mercy  not  the  same, 353 

Kingdom  of  heaven,  its  future-state  reference  denied, 21 

Kingdom  of  God,  its  application  confined  to  this  world, 233 

Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  it  at  Jerusalem's  destruction,.  .317, 318 

Lordship  of  Christ  not  salvation, 31 

Love  of  God,  U.  argument  refuted, 85 

unchangeable, .-. 87 

not  a  passion,  as  in  man, 336 

preaching  it  in  the  abstract,  begets  irreligion, 388 

harmonizes  with  endless  punishment, 395,  396 

Love  to  God,  how  it  obtains  in  the  heart, 388 

Law,  its  penalty  an  appeal  lo  fear, 153 

Liberality,  U.  willing  to  hear  both  sides, 336, 337 

Long  suffering,  U.  drives  it  from  the  divine  government, 164 

Last  day,  deceptive  course  exposed, 123, 124 

Living  God,  sense  of, 258 

Law,  Maine  Liquor,  its  probable  influence, 344 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


409 


Mercy,  none  in  U., 289 

and  justice  not  the  same, 353 

Murder  proved  innocent  by  U.  license, 56 

Mountain  on  which  Christ  was  tempted  was  human  pride, 267 

Moral  preaching  not  relished, 384 

Ministers  of  Christ,  their  duty  in  reference  to  U., 339 

Ministry,  comparative  view  not  presented, 352,  353 

Materialism  not  extensively  believed;   why? 218 

its  influence  in  France, 393 

Moral  agency  denied, 203 

No  future  punishment  a  denominational  sentiment, 380-383 

Opposition  helps  U., 338 

A.  C.  Thomas'  view  of  it, 339 

the  kind  of  opposition  U.  are  fond  of, 338 

Oath  of  God, 20 

Promise,  Abrahamic,  not  fulfilled  by  the  resurrection, 10 

whole  subject  considered, 9-21 

Punishment,  future,  belief  of  common  in  the  order  refuted, 380 

demoralizing — quotation  from  Skinner, 106 

Punishment,  not  after  death,  in  what  it  consists, 109 

social,  physical,  and  mental  sufferings  considered, 109-115 

all  punishment  a  blessing, 98, 108 

refuted, 281-290 

not  inflicted  before  the  sin, 136 

inflicted  immediately,  Whittemore, 117 

Witherell, 119 

opposed  to  the  idea  that  men  are  reserved,  2  Pet.  2:9, 118 

none  saved  from, 155, 156,  279,  280 

remission  of,  a  curse, 83 

endless,  a  conclusion  from  U.  views  of  1  Cor.  15 :  22, 217 

greater  error  than  all  others  put  together, 358 

first  openly  asserted  by  Tertullian,  refuted, 365-367 

Christian  Fathers  believed  it, 365-369 

Christ  and  his  apostles  never  condemned  it, 358 

threatened  in  the  Bible,  admitted  by  Dr.  Huntington, 91 

Persecution,  U.,  the  sect  everywhere  spoken  against, 143, 144 

they  have  never  persecuted, 334 

never  had  the  rod  of  civil  power, 335 

Peter's  vision,  perversion, ,..,,, 186 

Prayer,  all  pray  that  U.  may  be  true, , 196,  197 

can  you  pray  that  one  soul  may  be  damned? 198 

infidel  sentiments  concerning  prayer,, 295, 296 


410  GENERAL    INDEX. 

Prayer,  not  answered,  refuted, 256 

Cobb  and  Drew,  their  family  devotions,  Phariseeism, 298, 299 

U.  prayer  meetings  farcical, 299 

one  thousand  dollars  for  proof  that  Christ  ever  prayed  in  public,. 298 

Pentecost,  day  of,  (Matt.  25:  31-46,)  had  its  fulfillment  then, 90 

Perfections  of  God,  argument  considered, 321 

Paul,  St.,  aspires  to  a  spiritual  resurrection  in  this  life, 294 

reproached  for  his  U.,  refuted, 258 

aspires  to  posthumous  honors, 134 

against  U'.,  1  Cor.  15: 232,233 

never  used  the  word  hell, 326 

his  hope  concerning  the  resurrection,  (Acts  24: 15), 36, 37 

Polycarp,  his  belief  in  future  punishment, 368 

Pharisees,  their  hatred  to  Christ,  evidence  of  his  U., 363 

Predestination  taught, 203,  204,  288 

Parables  founded  upon  facts  and  not  fiction, 256 

"  Presence  of  the  Lord,"  meaning  of, 62 

Probation  may  close  before  death, 107 

Penalty  of  the  law,  U.  views, 109 

an  appeal  to  fear, >. 153 

Pardon,  U.  views  refuted, 156-160,  279,  280 

Resurrection,  all  men  saved  by  it, 9, 10 

Paul  believed  with  the  Jews  concerning  it, 36 

Balfour's  views, 217, 218 

current  views  of  the  order,  quotation  from  Dods, 219 

Bush  refuted, 224-227 

all  raised  in  glory,  the  idea  exploded, 228, 229 

Paul  labored  to  attain, 232 

Jews  and  Christians  raised  at  Jerusalem's  destruction, 189 

all  shall  be  equal, 233 

of  the  just,  (Luke  14 : 14,)  when  it  took  place, 129, 130 

Christ's  conversation  with  the  Sadducees  against  U., 234 

Restitution  of  all  things  not  the  salvation  of  all, 74, 172 

Rule    of    interpretation,   Whittemore's,  destructive  to   U.   exposi 
tions, 323,  234,  121 

future  reference  of   Luke  20:34-36,  disproved   by  U.  defi 
nitions, 341-343 

Rationalism,  resolution  of  the  Boston  Association, 331 

design  of  the  resolution, 332 

men  declared  to  be  not  Christian  ministers,  yet  continue  to 

preach  U., 332 

Ballou  a  Rationalist, 333 

the  principles  general  in  the  order, 269 

hypocrisy, , , , 334 


GENERAL   INDEX.  411 

Resolution  prohibiting  drunkards,  gamblers,  &c.,  from  becoming  offi 
cers  in  U.  societies, 384 

Eeason,  sinners  not  governed  by  it, 1^4 

man  responsible  when  it  is  dethroned, 209 

its  office  in  religion, 395>  396 

Rich  man  and  Lazarus,  absurdity  of  the  U.  interpretation, 252-257 

Rewarded  according  to  works  at  Jerusalem's  destruction, 102 

Run  so  as  to  obtain,  against  U., 1°^ 

Repentance,  impossible  to  renew  again  to, 208 

Statistics,  U.  church,  membership  not  given, 881 

numbers  when  compared  with  Methodists,. 373 

of  different  E.  orders  in  U.  States, 852 

number  of  U.  in  Maine, 34° 

Seed  of  Abraham,  who  are  they  V H'  -12 

Soul,  its  loss,  natural  life, 37-39 

its  immortality  denied  by  Balfour, 2l7 

part  of  God,  refuted, 20°-202 

Sympathy,  not  the  rule  of  doctrine, 42 

arguments  from,  dishonorable  to  God, 43 

opposed  to  both  justice  and  mercy,  illustration, 43,  44 

appeals  to,  deceptive  and  fallacious, 322> 323 

"  Saviour  of  the  world,"  this  no  proof  of  U., 5I 

Salvation,  none  in  the  future  state,  a  result  of  U.  reasoning, 165,  121 

none   anywhere, 

.  ^  . « .  276 

made  sure  when  God  created  man, 291> 292 

OQO 

a  Christless  thing, 

all  saved  3000  years  ago, 4 

. .  . 280 

1°fgraCe": ..108,142 

Sin,  pleasures  of, ' 

none  saved  from  it  in  this  world, •  -z 

its  own  punishment, —  • *J  » 

God  its  author, 288,20o,.,04 

evangelical  views  of,  misrepresented, 10b 

gospel  grace  saves  from  punishment  for, 157-159 

death  frees  from  it,  perversion  of  Rom.  6:7, 3J 

Sting  of  death, "2 

Supplied  words,  (2  Cor.  5: 10,  11,) '^7'™ 

Saints  and  sinners  on  a  level  as  to  the  future, ^",  »» 

Sheep  and  goats:  shall  separate  them,  Page  versus  Rogers, ^7 

Saviour,  God  the  special, 

Satan,  Peter  so  called 


349 
350 
J/B7Finl7y"on"the"agency  of  U.  in  filling  the  Ohio  Prison,. . . ...  .351 


State  Prisons,  visited  to  sustain  U.,. 

Atheism  sustained  in  the  same  way,.  35 


412  GENERAL   INDEX. 

State  Prison,  crimes  not  chargeable  to  Evangelical  sentiments,    . .  .350, 851 

Suffering  with  Christ  connected  with  future  glory,. 277 

Strait  gate, 315-318 

Suicide,  no  sin, 319 

prepunished, 318 

U.  commit  it, .»...,..,  >  ..,...,>....».., 391,  392 

rational  if  U.  is  true, 392 

Christians  will  not  commit  it, 394 

Twistical,  history  of  the  word, 349 

Tares,  parable  of, 175-184 

Tears,  shall  be  all  wiped, 207 

"  The  dead,"  import  of  the  expression, 228 

Thomas,  A.  C.,  specimens  of  his  sophistry, 48,  49 

Tertullian. 368 

the  first  who  taught  endless  punishment  in  the  church,  re 
futed,   365-367 

Titus,  Bishop  of  Bostra, 369 

Terrors  of  the  Lord,  must  be  preached, 154,  155 

Temptation,  the  devil  not  the  only  source, 271 

of  Christ,    266 

Ballou's  gross  perversion, 267 

Truth,  Christ  came  not  to  make  it,: 291 

Tatian,  his  doctrine, 368 

Theophilus, 368 

Universalism,  not  a  new  doctrine, 329 

extensively  believed  in  other  sects, 345-349 

extensively  believed  in  Germany, 330 

its  decline  in  Maine, 340 

"  will  do  to  live  by,"  false, 355 

never  reforms, 383-389 

object  of  its  ministry  different  from  that  of  the  Evangelical 

ministry, 345 

not  indebted  to  Christ  for  it,  but  the  resurrection, 9, 10,  259 

destroyed  by  its  own  arguments,  48, 49, 121,  135,  165,  217,  323-328, 

341-343 
comparative  view  of  its  ministry  in  point  of  numbers,.  .352,  373,  386 

duty  of  Christians  respecting  it, 379 

ministers  should  expose  it, 339 

wisdom  and  information  necessary, 339 

some  good  ministers  do  not  understand  it;   such  should  be 

cautious, 346 

Borne  respectable  men  embrace  it,  and  why? 388, 389 

not  reformatory;  why? 388 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


413 


Unversalism,  opposed  in  every  point  to  E.  Christianity,   375-377 

system  of  Infidelity, 379 

testimony  of  leading  men  in  the  order, 377 

number  of  preachers  in  North  America, 3?3 

number  in  U.  States, 352 

its  opinions  grow  most  naturally  out  of  the  Bible, 371 

many  of  its  ministry  once  partialists, 852 

its  wanfc  of  vitality  accounted  for, 1^° 

its  moral  influence, 383 

its  ministry  should  not  be  listened  to ;  why  ? 337 

condemned  out  of  its  own  mouth, 
leads  to  suicide, 

Universalists,  disfellowship  of,  not  bigotry,. 37! 

treatment  Christians  should  give  them, 38i 

Unpardonable  sin,  fifty  dollars  offered  for  the  expression, 325 

Vengeance  of  God,  Paul  preached  it, 14! 

purifies  the  sinner, 

endless,  so  proved  by  U.  logic, 261> 26 

means  disciplinary  punishment,  refuted, 39! 

Whittemore,  T.,  testifies  to  the  difference  between  his  and  other  sects,.  .376 
a  twistical  writer, 

Witherell,  J.  F.,  his  pamphlet,  its  general  commendation, 2i 

Wesley,  John,  made  a  U.,  hypocrite,  and  liar, 345-3-; 

Will,  human,  its  freedom  denied, ^  -2^' 

God's  will  always  done,  refuted, 20t>>  20 

.  288 

absolute, 


SCRIPTURE  INDEX. 


SCRIPTURE  INDEX. 


PAGE 

Genesis  1:1  ....................  87 

2:7  ....................  200 

7  :  23  ..................  83 

12:2,3  .................  9 

18:17,18  ...............  9 

19:24,25  ...............  83 

21:33  ..................  301 

22:13  ..................  9 

26:4  ...................  9 

28:14  ..................  9 

Exodus  28  :  29,  30  ...............  51 

32:8-14  ................  161 

34:6,  7  .................  163 

1  Kings  9:  7  ....................  168 

18:36,37  ...............  296 

Ezra  9:  13  ......................  161 

Job  38:  28  ......................  41 

Psalms  2:  8  .....................  78 

5:5  ....................  48 

7:11  .................  261,48 

22:27  ..................  69 

25:11  ..................  161 

68:11  ..................  119 


62:12 


155 


73:7 Ill 

82:6 271 

98:3 40 

103:10 161 

118:10 76,13 

19 


PAOB 

Proverbs  10:  24 199 

11:7 59 

11:8 69 

11:31 174 

13:15 142 

14:32 69,324 

Ecclesiastes  8: 11 106 

9:  2 174 

12:  7 200 

12:14 165,324 

Isaiah  1:18 89 

2:2 39 

25:7-10 76 

27:11 206 

30:33 202 

32:22 395 

40:4,5 88 

45 :  23-25 138 

46:10,11 203 

49:6 40 

55:10,11 145 

57:16 47 

59:20 28 

Jeremiah  7 :  31,  32 248 

19:5,6,7 248 

31:33,34 141,22 

Lamentations  3 :  31 130 

3:32,33 281 

Ezekiell8:4..  ..  279 


418 


SCRIPTURE    INDEX. 


Ezekiel  33 : 14-16 280,  160 

37:11-14 190 

Hosea9:15...  .     87 


Joel  2 :  28 


Jonah  1:2 162 

3:10 162 

4:2  ..  .162 


Micah  7:  18.. 


206 


Malachi  1:2 43 

2:10 295,  41 

Matthew  3 : 5,  6 76 

4:  4 388 

4:1-11 265 

5:11,12 126 

6:9 41 

6:10 196 

7:11 294 

7:21 206 

8:28-34 268 

1U:23 104 

10:28 238 

10:39 37 

10:40 13 

12:32 23 

13:24-30 175 

13:33 257 

16:6 262,  362 

16:19 127 

16:23 271 

16:25 37 

16:26 38 

16:27,28 101 

17:11 172,75 

21:31 61 

22:30 234 

23:13 21 

24:  2 93 

24:9 191 

24:21 94 


Matthew  24 :  9-16 63 

24:23 102 

25:31-46 90,99,  303 

26:24 278 

Mark  1:12, 13 265 

3:29 23,  303,  152 

9 :  43 249 

11:17 13 

12:  25 234 

16:15,16 147,57 

Luke  1 : 68-75 18 

2:10 166 

2:30-32 169 

4:22 85 

4:  1-13 265 

6:22,23 126 

7:47 158 

12:10 23 

12:  4,  5 238 

12:32 151 

13:23,30 315,285 

13:  6-9 ]60 

14:  14 129 

14:16-24 77 

16:19-31 252 

17:33 37 

18:18 147 

18:1-3 296 

19:41 284 

20:35,36 234,  341 

21:24 94 

John  1:11 16 

1:12 45 

3:14,15,36 101,74 

3:35 78 

4:42 58 

5:40 101 

5:28,29 188 

6:70 271 

6:40 119 

6:37 78 

6:27 .  116 


SCRIPTURE    INDEX. 


419 


John  8:41,  42 44 

8:21,22,  23,24 124 

9:39 119 

12:25 37 

12:31,47 119 

12:  32 100 

13:33 125 

17:2 78 

17:9,16 82 

Acts  1:11 127 

3:21,26 15 

3 :  20,  21  . . . : 74 

5:1-10 283 

10;  10-16 186 

13:46 17 

13:32,33 18 

13:10 44 

16:30 210 

17:30,31 34 

23:6-9 37 

24:25 135 

24:15 36,  362 

26:22,23 220 

28:22 143 

Romans  2 :  4-16 135 

3:25 159 

4:11,22,24 17 

4:25,26 280 

5 : 12, 17-21 69 

6:7 30 

6:23 276,  325 


Romans  14 :  23 196 

15:8,11 18 

1  Corinthians  3 : 12 182 

9:27 105 

15:20 213 

15:21-23 214,  211 

15:24,25 222 

15:  26 223 

15:27,28 223 

15:35 224 

15:42-44 226,  228 

15:  50-52 229 

15:53,54 231 

15:  55-57 231 

15:58 231 

2  Corinthians  2 :  11 274 

4:  17,18 277,  305 

5:10,  11 67,  154 

5:  15 290 

5:17 65 

5:19,20 172 

121 

..  377 


8:9 

8:14 

8:17,18 


20 
45 
278 
307 
354 
27 


8 : 19-23 

9:18 

10:  1 

11:26 27 

95 

..   399 


Galatians  3:8 16 

3 :  13 282 

3:16 11 

3 :  17-21 264 

3:26 46,18 

3:28 22 

3:29 12 

4:4,5 45 

Ephesians  1 : 10 171 


11:51 

12:19-21 

14:7,8 31 

14:10,11 101 

14: 10, 12 138 1 Philippians  2 :  9-11 138 


2:  9  

251 

2:  12  

20 

4:  19 

114 

4:  32 

156 

6:  12  

268 

6:16... 

..  274 

420 


SCRIPTURE   INDEX. 


Philippians  3  •  11 

294 

Hebrews  11:1              .  . 

48 

3  •  20  21 

300 

11  •  7 

154 

12:  11  

78 

Colossians  1  :  20  

173 

3:  13         .... 

156 

James  1  :  14                          . 

.  .  .    .271 

1-  17 

48 

1  Thessalonians  2:  16  .... 

94 

2:  13 

854 

2-  14   15 

61 

4-  7 

274 

4:  5  

62 

4-15  17 

66,  65,  60 

1  Peter  1:  18  19 

52 

2  Thessalonians  1  •  7-10 

60,  66 

2  Peter  2  :  9 

118 

2-  10-12 

283 

3-  7 

32 

1  Timothy  2:4  

130 

1  Johnl:  7  

89 

2:6            

290 

1:9       

.   ...  171 

4-  2 

114 

3-  10 

.     45 

4.  10 

258,  363 

3  :  15 

..    .318 

5  :  24         

136 

3:8   

170 

2  Timothy  2f  10 

46,  74 

4:  14 

..     58 

2-  25 

209 

4:  16     

86 

3-13       

286 

4-68 

133 

2  John  10  11 

378 

4:78 

260 

Jude  6     

117 

Hebrews  2:9        

290 

14,  15  

188 

2-  14  15       .    .  .  . 

185 

4-1           

153 

Revelation  1:7  

13 

4-  3 

82 

2:  10  

.  .  116 

5.  9 

144  277 

3:4.. 

237 

6'  1  2 

132 

5:  13  

56 

6-46 

208 

7:  10  

292 

6-17  20 

20 

7:  9,  10  

....     55 

7:  22  25     

52 

14:  13  

49 

9-  16  17 

181,  93 

20:  12-15  

314 

9:  27,  28       

50 

21:  4,  7,  8  

207 

10-  11 

262 

21:  4  

265 

10:  26,31.. 

.  144 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


1 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


iWAk    61935 

OjfflfS  >v_A 

S\  CZ.  *•  *    •-"* 

MI  PI  9°  1968  1  8 

f\Uv3    <£  «     ' 

RECEiVEU 

JUU17'69-2PM 

i*r»Aisl   DEPT. 

jtitTrWX:    *»*•» 

LD  21-100m-8,'34 

¥"134887 


5941 

£4- 

Q~ ' >;i  -'*•?•  citing 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


iiiiHiiiiiiiiiint  Itiiinii 


